After the Babouvist women that I put here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/776228737545060352/the-most-prominent-revolutionary-women-among-the?source=share here are the revolutionary women of my favorite faction

Marie-Françoise Goupil, wife of Hébert: She supported her husband's policies and became friends with Lucile Desmoulins while in prison. See the full and great post by @anotherhumaninthisworld on this often overlooked woman here.

Henriette Simonin Widow Chaumette : She corresponded with Gracchus Babeuf after her husband’s execution.

Sophie Momoro: Sophie played the role of the Goddess of Reason during the dechristianization ceremonies. You can find more about her role here. She also managed her husband's workshop and printing presses in his absence, accompanying him on a mission to Vendée. Momoro expressed his wife’s political views in a letter and she also drafted an appeal for assistance to the Convention in his characteristic style.

Marie-Angélique, widow of Ronsin and wife of Turreau: She is said to have met Ronsin in Belgium when he was overseeing Dumouriez, or possibly while she was working as a canteen keeper, according to Geneanet. She married Charles-Philippe Ronsin in 1793.

Here is the revolutionary period of Marie-Angélique Lequesne: “Marie-Angélique Lequesne was caught up in the measures taken against the Hébertists and imprisoned on the 1st of Germinal at the Maison d'Arrêt des Anglaises. She frequently engaged with ultra-revolutionary circles both before and after Ronsin’s death, even dressing as an Amazon to congratulate the Directory on a victory.”

According to Jorris' correspondence, 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. He expressed his hostility toward anyone who adhered to the principles of the French Revolution: 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.”

Described as good-natured, intelligent, generous, plain, and curious, Marie-Angélique was diplomatic, and later, when Turreau was appointed ambassador to America, she charmed the political class. She became a close friend of Dolley Madison, one of the future First Ladies of the United States, and played an essential role in her political development. They had a great relationship.

Unfortunately, her second marriage to Turreau became abusive to the point where he separated her from her children after years of mistreatment, as seen here, and the separation from her children here.

If you want to know more about her first husband Ronsin, it's here https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/769225405243752448/the-life-of-charles-philippe-ronsin-from?source=share

Sylvie Audouin: Daughter of Jean Nicolas Pache (the first part of the post on Pache is here), who was the Minister of War during the French Revolution, and later the wife of the Hébertist Xavier Audouin (the post dedicated to Xavier Audouin is here). Despite being only 16 years old, Sylvie signed a 1792 manifesto alongside her father, her future husband, and revolutionaries such as Pauline Léon. According to Xavier Audouin, she openly supported his policies (and thus the Hébertist cause) and did not hesitate to speak about them.

Sylvie became more widely known when, while imprisoned and kept in solitary confinement for 100 days, she displayed immense courage and openly supported her father and especially her husband, who were also imprisoned, even earning a civic crown.

After being freed, she fought to share the "bread and bed" of her husband, during a time when the fate of her family’s men was uncertain. She became famous in the fortress of Ham, where she communicated with them, wrote letters in their defense, and even wrote a book about her experiences. If you are interested in learning more about her revolutionary life, see the post on Sylvie here.

On slavery, although he was against it, it is unfortunate that he did not go further in supporting the Haitian revolt, unlike Marat or Chaumette, for example. He completely missed the boat regarding women's rights. While as a young lawyer he supported the entry of Louise de Keralio into the Academy of Sciences, Letters, and Arts, he was against women's right to vote and their more active participation in civic life (unlike people like Charles Gilbert Romme, etc.).

On social issues, he went much less far than the Hébertist movement, the group known as the Enragés, Gracchus Babeuf, etc. Moreover, I have often discussed that if Robespierre was demonized, those who were further to the left than him, like the Hébertists, are even more demonized ( except Hebert that I truly dislike like a lot of you, I find them a lot very interesting and I really like Momoro or Hanriot even if it is important to said that Hanriot would be a supporter of Robespierre in the end and will follow in his fall) or outright forgotten (the Enragés or the Babouvists) in popular culture.

This was just a point of view, far from me the idea of bashing, just an explanation of why Robespierre is clearly not in my top 20. He was engaged ,that truth and got admirable qualities I can't deny it ( even if he make a lot of things that we can reproach he and the majority of Convention), but not enough for my taste compared to some of his colleagues. I have the impression that he was always in the middle without going too far in social ideas unlike others.

Warning: Contains a disturbing passage regarding self-mutilation. This post is not reliable like the others due to lack of information and unreliable sources. So do not hesitate to correct if you find errors and especially other information

Sylvie Audouin was an Hébertist revolutionary who became involved from a young age. However, to date, I have not found many reliable sources about her, but what is available is fascinating. Like all these women in the shadows of the Revolution, she deserves to be better known. According to Matilde Larrère, this revolutionary woman was fairly well-known (though much less so compared to others) in her time.

Sylvie Audouin, whose full name was Marie Sylvie Pache (some say Silvie), was born on March 4, 1777 (but Pierquin found that in reality this date is March 2, 1777 and the baptismal certificate March 4) . Her parents were Swiss Jean-Nicolas Pache and Marie-Marguerite “Sylvie” Valette, an illegitimate daughter of Charles Eugène de la Croix de Castries, who had briefly served as the Minister of the Navy in 1780. This union was the result of an arranged marriage because Castries held Pache in high regard when they met at the École de Génie in Mézières, where the future revolutionary had developed various talents, including military engineering, a sharp intellect, a deep cultural knowledge, and formed a lasting friendship with Gaspard Monge.

It’s also worth noting that Sylvie’s godmother was the Countess de la Marck, who had raised her mother. Soon after, Sylvie had a little brother named Jean, born in 1779. The family followed Rousseau's educational philosophy, teaching their children to gather herbs, give harp lessons to their daughter, and lead a pastoral life. Sylvie's mother, according to Perquin, was very beautiful and a skilled musician. Through Castries' influence, Pache was appointed as the Controller of the King's Household under Necker, though he later left the post to live in Switzerland. However, tragedy soon struck the family when Pache's wife passed away in 1786, despite all the care she received, a loss from which Pache never truly recovered.

Following their mother’s death, Sylvie and Jean were raised by their father and their paternal grandmother, Jeanne Lallemand. The small family continued to live in Switzerland until 1790 (some say it was Monge who convinced Pache to join the Revolution that year). A legend claims that just before the Federation of 1790, Sylvie got off the stagecoach and threw herself into the arms of Monge’s daughters. In any case, Gaspard Monge and Jean-Nicolas Pache threw themselves into the Revolution wholeheartedly and even led the Société Populaire du Luxembourg.

The Pache family settled on Rue de Tournon. Jean-Marie Roland de la Platière and especially Manon Roland, according to Lenôtre and Adrien See, held Pache in the highest regard, and he became Roland’s secretary. In 1792, Jean-Nicolas Pache was appointed Chief of Staff at the Ministry of the Interior before becoming Minister of War. Sylvie, despite being a teenager, was also involved in revolutionary activities. At the age of 16, she signed the "Adresse au Peuple" (an appeal against King Louis XVI) alongside her father, the revolutionary Marchand , Pauline Léon , and her future husband, Xavier Audouin.

When Pache was Minister of War, he would gather his collaborators around a table chaired by his mother, and Sylvie would join them, sitting with her younger brother. According to Avenel, who quotes a Pache apologist, the names of these collaborators included Meusnier, du Falga, Vergne, Vincent, Hassenfratz, and Carnot-Feulins. One could assume that she used this opportunity to gain further political experience. This is how she met Xavier Audouin. Xavier Audouin was a former priest from Limoges, passionate about the army, the navy, and a staunch Hébertist. A Jacobin and early revolutionary ally of Hébert, he stood out as a delegate from the Saint-Grégoire section of August 10 and was one of those who called for the King’s dethronement. It was here that he met Pache, and they continued on their revolutionary path together. Later, Pache spoke to Sylvie about him. Eventually, Audouin joined the Ministry of War after returning from his mission in Vendée, becoming Secretary General (with a salary of 19,000 livres, according to some sources).

Sylvie married at the age of 16, on January 15, 1793, the same day the deputies of the Convention began judging Louis XVI on the charge of "conspiracy against Liberty and attempts against the safety of the nation." Naturally, there was no religious ceremony for the couple. The witnesses to Xavier Audouin’s marriage were Santerre and Nicolas Maurice, a cavalry captain. For Sylvie Audouin, the witnesses were Jean-Baptiste Meunier, Marshal of the Camp, and Jacques-René Hébert, who had to replace an absent witness at the last minute.

In the meantime, Pache had shifted from being a “Girondin” to a “Montagnard,” and he opposed Roland on several issues. Manon Roland called him "the Tartuffe of the Revolution" and said he was "the most deceitful man possible" (this last term is taken from a letter to Servan, dated December 25, 1792, volume II, page 444 of Madame Roland’s letters), though he surrounded himself with competent people. Having sensed Dumouriez’s betrayal, Pache became one of his greatest enemies before Dumouriez’s ultimate betrayal of the French Revolution. Buzot would attack Sylvie, inventing imaginary sisters for her.

Sylvie was not spared from the political opponents of her father. Dumouriez described her as both ugly and wicked (though according to Adrien See, she was graceful, and Armand Corbeiller, in his book on Charles Sepher, described her as "ravishing"). Buzot made similar claims, inventing imaginary sisters for Sylvie and further slandering her, writing: “The children of Pache, his daughters, ran wild in places where murder and pillage were preached with the greatest impudence, and they were often seen in so-called 'fraternal embraces' warming up disgusting orgies” (like other wives and daughters of revolutionaries, she faced her share of baseless attacks, though in Buzot’s case, it’s likely he was actually targeting others other revolutionary women in reality).

In any case, one might assume that while she was likely disappointed by her father’s loss of his position as Minister of War, she was happy to see him elected Mayor of Paris, where he earned the nickname "Papa Pache," and that her husband became the Assistant Minister of War under Bouchotte. Additionally, this was the time when the Hébertists were quite triumphant, both on the Paris Commune, in the Cordeliers' Club, and in the Ministry of War. However, we all know that during the complex episode of the "faction wars," some Hébertist leaders were sent to the guillotine. Pache, having refused to join the insurrection like Hanriot and Chaumette, was spared (though Chaumette’s fate was not so fortunate), and he enjoyed the protection of Robespierre for a time. But not for long…

Jean-Nicolas Pache, his mother, Xavier and Sylvie Audouin would soon be arrested and imprisoned. Xavier Audouin recounted his arrest in one of his many writings, L'Intérieur des maisons d'arrêt: "Some noise... made by the bearer of orders with his squad woke me from my peaceful slumber; but my wife, hearing the noise of the weapons, was frightened; so I jumped for my pistols, ran to the door, and recognized all the gendarmes filling the first room. It was all the gear of an arrest. I leave it to those who shared my situation to imagine the feelings this spectacle caused me. (...) I threw myself back into bed, holding my wife in my arms: 'Courage, my friend, courage.'" Some unreliable sources have attempted to explain the reasons for this arrest. The first source is Louis de Launay, who relied on a statement from Eugène Eschassériaux, the great-grandson of Monge. It is important to remember that Sylvie Audouin was a fervent Hébertist, and it is clear that she must have been affected by the execution of the Hébertists. Louis de Launay states the following:

"On May 9, 1794, a month after the execution of Danton and Camille Desmoulins, and the day after Lavoisier's execution, Mrs. Ardouin, daughter of Pache, was present, probably with her father [Biography of Eschassériaux]. Her husband had been the General Secretary of the Ministry of War under Pache. She held, like her whole family, very advanced views. That evening, in Monge's salon, she had a very heated argument with Carnot, Prieur de la Côte-d'Or, and other members of the Committees of Public Safety and General Security: those whom Pache called the ‘Septemvirs.’ Guyton de Morveau also attended the meeting. Mrs. Ardouin wanted to justify Hébert and his accomplices, whose arrest had occurred during the night of March 13-14, with their execution on March 22. Pache, who had been designated to play a key role in the Hébertist movement, had indeed appeared at the Convention on March 19, accompanied by a delegation from the General Council of the Commune, to affirm the purity of his intentions and those of the General Council toward the Convention. But everyone knew what such a statement meant and understood that a terrible new phase was unfolding among the victors of the day before, now ready to destroy each other, just as they had sacrificed the Girondins, Hébert, and Danton. The delay in the General Council's statement had proven it to be merely diplomatic, and Mrs. Ardouin, in her agitation, was unwittingly revealing her father’s secret sentiments. What did she exactly say that evening? Did she confess her complicity with the Hébertists? Did she glorify the Commune of Paris at the expense of the Convention? Did she announce the Commune’s imminent triumph over the Assembly, which had been decimated so many times? Whatever the case, the following morning, Pache, his mother, daughter, and son-in-law were arrested by order of the Committees of Public Safety and General Security."

However, there are no sources to confirm this quarrel.

According to Adrien See Aulard’s annotations in his book Public Safety XIII 412, Xavier Audouin explained the reasons for the arrests, saying, “Pache had openly broken with the Committees: he had particularly mistreated Billaud. I had had several clashes with Robespierre, Collot, Vadier. My wife had quarreled with one of the rulers.” It is known from testimonies that Xavier Audouin experienced deep sadness after the execution of the Hébertists, so perhaps his wife did too.

Did Sylvie Audouin have a dispute with a member of the Committee of Public Safety, such as Carnot or Prieur de la Côte-d'Or? And if so, could it have been about the executed Hébertists, whom she must have known very well? There are few clues about this, and even if it were true, I find it hard to believe that a simple dispute could lead to an arrest, as I’ve explained here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/762707569912496128/request-for-information-on-the-revolutionary?source=share. Furthermore, there must have been a significant number of votes to authorize an arrest, so it would be difficult to settle scores this way. Moreover, at a time when the members of the Committee of Public Safety were overwhelmed with work, they had other priorities than focusing on minor quarrels. Therefore, there is no need to contribute to further dark legends about the Committee of Public Safety, Carnot, and Prieur de la Côte-d'Or, who, for all their faults, would certainly not have lowered themselves to this level.

As for Xavier Audouin’s claim about Robespierre, it is puzzling because, at the time, Robespierre still publicly considered Pache an ally and was opposed to Pache's arrest . Even if Xavier Audouin had political disagreements with his father-in-law on certain points, Robespierre had not yet broken with them (it appears he did so only on the 8th of Thermidor, when he attacked his adversaries for talking about "restoring Pache to his mayoral functions," as Michel Eude noted here https://www.jstor.org/stable/41924663 ). The most reliable reason for their arrest would be quite different, more reliable and was noted by Michel Eude whose motive I explained in the post I made on Xavier Audouin https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/776762458733002752/the-life-of-the-revolutionary-xavier-audouin-from?source=share Sylvie and Jeanne Lallemand unfortunately only suffered, in my opinion, the fate of certain revolutionary wives and mothers imprisoned for reasons that still escape us, such as Marie-Françoise Goupil, Pétion's wife, Elisabeth le Bon, Elisabeth Le Bas, etc...

In any case, the sources diverge, but Sylvie was separated from her husband, grandmother, and father, imprisoned at the prison Port-Libre, where she was placed in solitary confinement for 100 days, according to Adrien See (while Louis de Launay claims she was held at the Luxembourg). This is where she would demonstrate incredible strength of character. To publicly show her loyalty to her loved ones despite an uncertain future, she would use a heated needle to carve her husband's name into her left breast. According to Aulard, this act earned her a civic crown on the 10th of Floréal, Year IV, from the municipal administration during the spouses' celebration (Aulard, Paris sous le Consulat).

Her grandmother and she were released after one hundred days of imprisonment , but her husband and father were not. Here is an excerpt from Pache's letter on the imprisonment of his daughter and his mother and their release :

Citizens representatives, I, along with my mother, daughter, and son-in-law, have been kept in secret for one hundred days.

On the hundred and first day, citizen Vouland informed me that my mother and daughter had been freed, and my son-in-law and I had been removed from secret confinement.

Deeply moved by this news, I immediately rushed to thank you.

(...)

Signed: Pache

Audouin reportedly wrote the following: “We cried,” wrote Audouin, “without being able to say anything. But these tears didn’t hurt... How much she had changed! Suffering, sorrow, and despair had altered her features. She was no longer herself; when she wrote to me, it was still her; she asked for my forgiveness for being free before me.”

However, Xavier Audouin and Jean-Nicolas Pache's captivity would continue. I’ll give you an excerpt from Xavier Audouin’s letter, in which he mentions his wife and mother-in-law, showing how the women of the family publicly supported the political beliefs of the revolutionaries in their family:

"Citizens, I have been in the prison of Pélagie for five months. I was arrested on the 21st of Floréal with my whole family, without being told the reasons for this measure, which I still ignore. My father-in-law Pache did some good work. I learned my duties from him. If my wife and the octogenarian mother did not share our work, they at least applauded the desire to serve our country."

Nevertheless, another letter from Xavier Audouin, dated the 17th of Vendémiaire, Year III (October 8, 1794), catches my attention. He writes again:

"These men you punished, those who still deserve to be punished, had subjected me, my father, my wife aged 16 and nursing a child, her 14-year-old brother, and her 80-year-old grandmother to the most rigorous and unjust secrecy. The 9th of Thermidor restored my right to communicate with you. I have used this means only once. Because my wife and child had obtained justice, I considered my personal pain to be of little importance."

Yet, Sylvie would not become a mother until 1795, when she gave birth to a boy on November 29, 1795. This is quite strange. In any case, if the detentions of Pache and Audouin lasted, one of the reasons was because the right wing was now in power (with the left weakened by internal struggles) and they had not forgotten Pache, the former Girondin who had become a fervent opponent of theirs. However, it seems that Sylvie did not abandon either her husband or her father. As they were repeatedly transferred from prison, Sylvie allegedly obtained permission to "share bread and bed" with her husband in prison. She became famous in this prison. One day, a representative of the people, Foussedoire, who was held at the Fort du Ham and spoke about his wife's grief, was interrupted by Sylvie, who uncovered her breast to show him the scar, saying, “See, see if a woman doesn’t have as much courage to suffer as you do!” She continued to visit him often.

When their detention still continued, Sylvie wrote a letter dated Chartres, the 10th of Vendémiaire, Year IV:

“Although the course of justice has seemed slow to me, I have had to swallow my grief and patiently wait for the tribunal’s decision regarding my husband. But finally, after four months, after the seals were lifted from his house, after hearing witnesses, after exhausting all the resources of his ministry, the public prosecutor has declared to the Convention that he found nothing against him. This declaration, citizen representative, gives me the right to implore the justice of the Convention. It awaits a report from its Committees to decide on my husband's fate. This report can only be favorable to him, but it is important to speed it up, and if necessary, I implore you to paint me their condition. My husband presents it to you in a pamphlet I am sending you. This portrayal is not exaggerated: to avoid adding to his suffering, I had to hide half of what I endure from him.” She attached her husband's pamphlet, L'Intérieur des maisons d'arrêt .

This ordeal would end on the 4th of Brumaire, Year IV (October 26, 1795). This situation would have lasted so long without real decrees of accusation. Jean, Sylvie’s younger brother, handled the delivery of the decree. Sylvie remained in Paris with her husband, who continued his political activities. Based on her character, we can only assume that she supported her husband’s political career as one of the most important neo-Jacobins under the Directory. She may have even supported her father as well, who, contrary to popular belief, had not completely abandoned politics at that point, even when withdrawn at Thin, as he wrote in favor of the Babouvists when they were put on trial or to justify his positions.

Despite the significant political activities of her husband, she and Xavier made time to visit Pache at his home in Thin, spending a few months each year taking her children with her . They enjoyed simple family moments, sharing meals, playing music, and gardening.

Nevertheless, it is assumed that the Audouin couple experienced new fears following the coup of Brumaire.

Xavier Audouin was part of the list of Jacobins who were supposed to be exiled from French territory. However, this decree was postponed, and Audouin was simply placed under surveillance, later aligning himself with Bonaparte's regime as a defender in the Council of Prizes (others say he remained discreet and did not profit from Bonaparte’s regime). According to Avenel, Audouin was horrified by the many slanders against the former administrations and the patriotic ministers from his time as Secretary of War. Sylvie likely supported him, as she shared Hébertist ideas.

But in 1802, it seems the couple withdrew from political life, much like Jean-Nicolas Pache, who rejected Bonaparte’s offer to work for him. Only Jean Pache, the son, apparently became a baron of the Empire.

Then, with the Restoration, Xavier Audouin, following the Additional Laws of 1816, became a fervent royalist without renouncing his revolutionary past, maintaining an excellent relationship with his father-in-law, unlike Jean Pache, the son, who was ashamed of his father's surname and sometimes avoided visiting him. The family was not troubled despite Pache’s role in Marie-Antoinette's death. Pierquin states that only Xavier Audouin, his children, and Jean Pache (the son) became royalists. Not Sylvie. Others say she did.

In any case, according to some sources, Sylvie managed her father’s property, but it seems she and her husband had financial difficulties on November 1, 1819, to the point that Pache had to give them 20,000 francs. She would not have time to enjoy it. A year after losing her grandmother, Sylvie Audouin died on January 15, 1820. She left behind her father, husband Xavier Audouin, and their four children: Nicolas-Léonard-Xavier, Maurice-Ernest, Alexandrine-Élisa-Sylvie, and Sylvie-Félicie. She was, in a way, fortunate not to witness the death of her daughter Sylvie-Félicie, who died of phthisis a year after her mother.

P.S: I have deliberately been superficial about the lives of Xavier Audouin and Jean-Nicolas Pache. I will write a separate post on each of these complex figures. I can’t help but find it amusing that Carnot and Pache, who couldn’t stand each other, antagonized each other, have so many similarities but are completely divergent. Equally ironic: Xavier Audouin held animosity against Camille Desmoulins (it seems the feeling was mutual), but both had loyal wives, even in the worst trials, publicly supporting their politics—even in prison (Lucile who signs as Camille Desmoulins' wife and Sylvie Audouin who mutilates her left breast to mark her husband's name).

Sources: Aulard Michael Bloche and Malik Diallo Michel Eude Gallica BNF Lenôtre Excerpt found in Charles Sepher: Swiss of Saint-Eustache and General of Division by Armand Le Corbeiller; preface by G. Lenôtre Pierquin Adrien See

Charles Philippe Ronsin was born on December 1, 1751, to a master cooper in Soissons. According to Maurice Chartier, who draws on the work of General Herlaut, Ronsin may have been born into an affluent family and received an education. However, it is unclear whether he was a brilliant student, as Jacob Louis suggests, since various successive wars led to the loss of archives.

He enlisted in the army at the age of 17, in the Aunis regiment, but after four years, he left. Why? Maurice Chartier speculates that Ronsin realized the future of a commoner in the army of the Old Regime did not meet his youthful expectations. He instead sought success as a playwright. Unlike other future revolutionaries such as Collot d’Herbois or Fabre d’Eglantine, Ronsin did not achieve the success he hoped for. His works, including Hecuba and Polyxena, were staged by the Committee of Actors, but his next play, Sédécias, was rejected in December 1783. He is believed to have married before the Revolution, but the identity of his first wife, as well as what happened to her—whether they divorced or she became a widow—remains a mystery. Ronsin's past is, in many ways, shrouded in uncertainty.

He mingled in artistic and literary circles and became friends with the painter David. Ironically, his greatest successes would come in the army during the French Revolution, even though he had initially left the military for a career in theater.

Like many revolutionaries, Ronsin's involvement in the Revolution began in 1789 when he was elected captain of the National Guard of the Saint-Roch district. He quickly joined the Jacobin and Cordelier clubs and began forging friendships with figures such as Danton and Marat. Georges Lefebvre describes him as a diligent figure.

From 1792, following the fall of the monarchy, Ronsin played an increasingly significant role. He had joined the Théâtre-Français section, which played an important role during the storming of the Tuileries in 1792. He co-wrote a pamphlet with Murville in honor of the citizens killed on August 10, 1792. He was appointed commissioner of the Executive Council. Under the orders of Minister of War Pache (affiliated with the Hébertists), Ronsin was sent to Belgium to oversee the dubious Dumouriez (whose treachery would later be confirmed). He denounced the corruption of Dumouriez’s suppliers. Gaspard Monge then entrusted him with a mission in the North. When Bouchotte took over as Minister of War, Ronsin's career soared. This was the period when the Exagérés faction gained popularity and became a political force in the National Assembly (where the Enragés were more influential in the sections, especially in the Gravilliers section, but struggled to gain representation).

On February 14, 1793, Pache was elected mayor of Paris with 11,881 votes out of 15,191 voters. Bouchotte, seen as close to the Hébertists (even if he later distanced himself from them), reorganized the patriots' strongholds. As Renaud Faget points out, "The result of this policy was a significant increase in the number of employees: they were 453 in April 1793 and 1800 when Bouchotte was ousted." Pierre Gaspard Chaumette, the prosecutor of the Commune of Paris, and Hébert, his deputy, along with Vincent as the Secretary General of the Ministry of War in April 1793, filled the Ministry with Cordeliers members and sent people like Momoro to Vendée. They were the "stars" of the Cordeliers club, one of the most powerful at the time, and enjoyed a certain level of popularity.

Ronsin was appointed as deputy to the Minister alongside Xavier Audouin (an important Hébertist who later became a neo-Jacobin under the Directory) and Prosper Sijeas. His most important rise came in Vendée, where he quickly ascended from captain and logistics officer for the army to brigadier general, eventually becoming the chief general of the Revolutionary Army of Paris by the end of his life. Ronsin played a key role in the rise of General Rossignol. His rapid ascent was met with hostility from some, particularly the Indulgents, one of whom, Philippeaux, became one of his principal adversaries. Ronsin broke with Danton (possibly since the Dumouriez affair—this hypothesis requires further study). In any case, in Vendée, he reunited with his friend Momoro, who had been sent on a mission, likely with Vincent’s involvement.

The tactics used in the Vendée, particularly in the battle for Rigué, have been widely criticized (to put it mildly). The report by Momoro and Ronsin states: "We don’t doubt that a large number of complaints were addressed to the National Convention…[regarding this tactic]; the malevolent men only condemn these measures, which, as rigorous as they are, may alone create disorder in the brigands' army and finish a cruel war." It is evident that Ronsin and Momoro committed unforgivable mistakes in Vendée as I said here about Momoro https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/759184374456549376/momoros-serious-fault?source=share

Another major failure associated with Ronsin was in Lyon. He spent less than a month there and was politically aligned with Collot d'Herbois. It remains unclear to what extent Ronsin can be held responsible for the massacre in Lyon (the execution of Lyonnais citizens by cannon and disproportionate executions). However, it is known that he approved of it, as he wrote: "The guillotine and the firing squad have brought justice to over 400 rebels, but a new revolutionary commission has just been established, composed of true sans-culottes; my colleague Parein is its president, and in a few days, the artillery fire from our gunners will have rid us, in one instant, of over 4000 conspirators. It is time to shorten the process." Upon his arrival in Lyon, Ronsin wrote: "The revolutionary army entered the city on the 5th of Frimaire... Terror was painted on every face, and the deep silence I had recommended to our brave soldiers made their march even more threatening, more terrifying."

It is still difficult to know whether Ronsin directly participated in the violence in Lyon, but like many other revolutionary actors, he can be held responsible for not disapproving of it, especially since he witnessed it. That others like Turreau, Barras, Fréron, and Fouché were more corrupt than Ronsin does not absolve him of responsibility.

Despite this, Ronsin suffered from a notorious black legend, like many Hébertists, and was even demonized more than Robespierre himself. In truth, his rise was deserved because he was a competent and honest administrator who did not profit from his position. He was defamed by figures like Desmoulins, yet according to Lefebvre, Ronsin lived and died poor. He was a courageous and diligent soldier. While he was one of the leaders of the Hébertist faction (although, in reality, it was primarily Ronsin and Momoro who led the Exagérés, as Hébert backed down during critical moments, while Ronsin and Momoro went all the way), it is important to note that unlike Momoro, who primarily defended social rights and even advocated for shared agrarian property rights, Ronsin championed a radical revolution—though his views were underdeveloped—that aligned him more with the Cordeliers at that time, who were close to the Hébertists.

Lefebvre acknowledges Ronsin's flaws, noting that he could be arrogant and violent in his language. However, it was the danger facing the Republic that pushed him to adopt such an attitude, rather than any shameless ambition or opportunism (like his "friend" Turreau). I wonder if Ronsin’s break with Danton, particularly after the Dumouriez affair, did not make him more radical, along with the infernal situation of the time. Although Ronsin may not have had the military genius of Kleber or Jourdan, he was certainly competent for his rank.

Upon his return to Paris, Ronsin became one of the leaders of the Exagérés faction. In December 1793, he and his friend Vincent were arrested, notably on the proposal of Fabre and Philippeaux. 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. Additionally, other Hébertists had been arrested and then released. However, aside from the episode concerning the abolition of slavery, where most set aside their grudges, it seems that reconciliation was impossible. Personally, I think the faults are shared between the Indulgents, the Committee of Public Safety, the Convention, and the Hébertists.

The poverty of the Parisian working class during the winter must not have helped ease tensions, particularly for people like Momoro, who prioritized the fight (with the black market and some speculators, things probably worsened). As I’ve mentioned before, the tension was so high that the Cordeliers were preparing an insurrection attempt. Momoro presided over it and draped the Declaration of the Rights of Man in black. Ronsin supported and demanded it. Vincent followed this line of action. Hébert did as well, until he tried to backtrack when he realized that the attempt might fail. Chaumette, Pache, and Hanriot refused.

They took Carrier as an ally for this insurrection attempt, who had been recalled from Nantes for his drownings. Collot d'Herbois, pragmatically, tried to reconcile, as he was close to some points of Ronsin’s politics. Here is an excerpt from Michel Biard’s book on Collot d'Herbois:

"The Jacobin session of the 16th of Ventôse was almost entirely devoted to these declarations. In the absence of Robespierre and Couthon, who were ill, as well as Billaud-Varenne and Jeanbon Saint-André, who were on missions, Collot d'Herbois was the only member of the Committee who regularly attended the Society. It was he who went up to the tribune to denounce the behavior of the Cordelier leaders, using much firmer language than that reserved earlier for Desmoulins and those like him who were merely 'lost.' Here, if the Cordeliers were in the same situation, the leaders were nevertheless labeled as plotters, and Collot mentions the fate of Jacques Roux, who had also 'seduced' the Cordeliers and whom the Committee had had imprisoned.”

"And, in a final attempt at reconciliation, the Jacobins decided to send a delegation, led by Collot d'Herbois, to preach unity to the Cordeliers. Hébert, Ronsin, and other leaders took the walk of Canossa and, in front of the Jacobin delegation, claimed that their words had been misrepresented and that the fraternity between the two societies was not in question. Did Collot d'Herbois sincerely believe in this rather clumsy reconciliation? If there was any real illusion, it was quickly dispelled. New threatening speeches from Vincent, the discovery of anonymous posters calling for insurrection, the return of Robespierre, Billaud, and Couthon to the Committee... all of these factors led to the final decision. The Committee opted for a preventive strike. On the night of the 22nd to the 23rd of Ventôse, Hébert, Vincent, Ronsin, and other 'suspects' were arrested."

Carrier escaped this arrest because he retracted, likely sensing the change in the political wind (and I wonder if his initial support for the insurrection was opportunistic). Contrary to what the black legend of the Hébertists suggests, they did not intend to massacre the Convention but rather to recreate a day like June 2, 1793, probably by eliminating political figures such as Barère (though, of course, that would still have been illegal). During this tumultuous period, there were even “anthropophagist” inscriptions with Robespierre’s name. Elsewhere, there were posters from the Cordeliers’ Club declaring that Fabre d'Églantine, Camille Desmoulins, and a few others had lost their trust. Another was a clear call for insurrection: "Sans-culottes, it is time. Strike the general call and ring the tocsin, arm yourself and let it not be long, for you see that they are pushing you to your last breath." Other messages had a clearly royalist tone, such as one found on a public building: "Death to the Republic! Long live Louis XVII."

Those who sought to eliminate the Hébertists would mix the judgment of the faction with dubious characters. There were false rumors of plundering involving Momoro (I’ve learned, as I study law, that nowadays, sometimes, in order to discredit those being judged, some accusation files violate legal procedures and leak false information to the press to ensure the suspect loses sympathy; I wonder if they used the same method then). They were accused of "plotting with foreigners." The wives of Hébert and Momoro were arrested, and later, Ronsin's wife, according to the memoirs of Jean-Balthazar de Bonardi du Ménil. The Hébertists were condemned on false accusations, such as posting seditious posters, sabotaging food supplies, and massacring prisoners in jails. There was little evidence against them, yet the president of the Tribunal said, "Infamous, you will all perish!"

Except for Hébert, all were executed with great courage. Ronsin said to his colleagues, "You will be condemned. When you should have acted, you talked. Know how to die. For my part, I swear that you shall not see me flinch. Strive to do the same." And when someone said that it was the end of the Republic, he responded, "The Republic is immortal."

The revolutionary army would be dissolved.

From what I’ve deduced, Ronsin was definitely not a saint. He did things that were totally condemnable, which, even in times of war, are inexcusable. However, that Turreau behaved as a greater "scoundrel" with the infernal columns does not exonerate Ronsin. But Ronsin was also a man victimized by a black legend even more tenacious than others— he was a competent and honest administrator, far from being a stupid man that some aid. His violent words can be placed in the context that he, too, was at his wits' end, like Marat or other revolutionaries who were exhausted from the struggle. He more than deserved his rank, even though he was not a military genius like Kléber or Jourdan. I don’t get the impression that he acted out of shameless ambition, but rather from a genuine frustration that the Republic was in danger, compounded by the behavior of certain people (primarily Danton and the Dumouriez affair). My point is that the Hébertists were demonized even more than other revolutionary factions, when in reality, they were wrongly seen as bloodthirsty incompetents. However, they have very interesting stories and have had their share of both glory and a darker side, like all revolutionary groups.

The Fate of His Wife Marie-Angélique Lequesne, Widow Ronsin

There is an important hypothesis about Marie-Angélique Lequesne ( my theory). She is said to have met Ronsin in Belgium when he was supervising Dumouriez, or she was working as a canteen keeper, according to Geneanet. At that time, since Ronsin was not yet a general, he could not marry her, and it was only in 1793, when she came from a wealthier family than Ronsin’s, that they married. Here is the revolutionary period of Marie-Angélique Lequesne:

“Marie-Angélique Lequesne was caught up in the measures taken against the Hébertists and imprisoned on the 1st of Germinal at the Maison d'Arrêt des Anglaises, frequently engaging with ultra-revolutionary circles both before and after Ronsin’s death, even dressing as an Amazon to congratulate the Directory on a victory.”

According to the correspondence of Jorris, 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. He expresses his hostility toward anyone who adhered to the principles of the French Revolution: 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."

Unfortunately, this marriage would become horrific for her. Turreau treated her with unimaginable cruelty, even having her flogged (a horrifying detail—I recently learned that it is very likely she was pregnant with their last child when he had her flogged). She followed her husband when he became an ambassador for Napoleon. She charmed the political class of Washington, unlike her husband. She became a very good friend of Dolley Madison, one of the most important future First Ladies of the United States, and played an essential role in her political development. Dolley described her as "good-natured, intelligent, generous, plain, and curious." They got along very well.

But Turreau continued to treat his wife terribly, and no one dared confront him about it until one day a judge confronted him. In retaliation, Turreau ordered Marie-Angélique to leave the United States, forced her to live in poverty for three years, and once again, it was the judge who arranged her departure to France. She eventually divorced him. Later, Turreau forced their daughter Alexandrine into a convent, and Marie-Angélique had to fight once more to free Alexandrine, which she succeeded in doing, according to this site: https://rembarre.fr/g_tur_ec.htm. Unfortunately, Alexandrine died in poverty years later.

An even more horrifying detail: Turreau, who called Charles-Philippe a friend from the time when Ronsin was still alive, stabbed him in the back by giving him a defeat, claiming that Ronsin was the one responsible, not him (while Turreau was the one truly responsible). You can see this in this post and here.

I wonder if Ronsin introduced Marie-Angélique to Turreau when they were still friends. After Ronsin was guillotined, Marie-Angélique Lequesne Ronsin went on to endure a terrible marriage with Turreau, who treated her with awful cruelty (as you can see in one of my posts here). In this way, Turreau betrayed the Ronsin couple a second time.

Sources:

Grace Phelan

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41929594?read-now=1&seq=4

Antoine Resche

(After studying it I disagree with Jacob Louis who says that Ronsin is incompetent but it remains an interesting analysis.

Warning: this is a mini fiction featuring Momoro, his thoughts before and during his time on the scaffold. There is therefore a mix of fiction (in the absence of certain information it leaves room for at least a little imagination) and truth. So no need to (too much) point out my historiographical errors. I take all criticism, just know that I have problems with the English translation on long texts so be indulgent (or try to be) :D In any case it's not bad to start at worst we fail and we listen to the criticisms :)

The revolutionary, who would soon have turned forty, knew he had little time left before his execution. He was hurrying to write to his wife, his companion, his friend, his lifelong support, Sophie. At first glance, their marriage seemed unlikely. Antoine François Momoro was only the son of a poor shoemaker and a housemaid, while Sophie was the granddaughter of Pierre-Simon Fournier, one of the most important printers in the country. On her mother's side, she was connected to the Gando family, specialists in typesetting for musical scores.

Her family was so well-connected that Benjamin Franklin himself had purchased printing types from the Fournier family. Nonetheless, the fact that Momoro was a printer and passionately devoted to his craft made the marriage possible. Of course, gossipers claimed the marriage was only due to Sophie’s dowry, but in reality, it was a marriage of love, celebrated in the Luxembourg district. Despite her strong character, Sophie remained, in his eyes, the ideal woman of the Revolution: virtuous, worthy of the women waiting for patriotic men to free them from servitude, fulfilling their role with dignity. Sophie had always supported him behind the scenes, and without her, he would not have been able to serve the Revolution and the country as well as he did.

A son was born shortly after their marriage, named Jean Antoine in honor of Sophie’s father. He brought them joy, pride, and love. By mutual agreement, they decided not to have any more children.

When Momoro was arrested by the conspirators of the Constituent Assembly in 1791, after the infamous Lafayette ordered the Champ de Mars massacre, he was taken in the dead of night. Looking back, the absurdity of that arrest made him smile. So many members of the National Guard to arrest one man! He was imprisoned for 22 days for an imaginary conspiracy—his only crime, and that of his companions, was to have called for the removal of the tyrant Capet after his blatant act of treason. Sophie had held up well, understanding why her husband was fighting and always supporting him. Upon his return, she awaited him, and despite their modesty, they rekindled their connection. They shared a great love and mutual respect, though it was not openly expressed, at least not by Momoro.

Since the beginning of the Revolution, he had explained to his wife that after the Republic and the Revolution, she and their son were the ones he loved the most. He had been hesitant at first, in 1789, especially when Camille Desmoulins came to him with his pamphlet. Momoro had advised him to hold off. Yet, he became more and more involved in the Revolution. He who once told Desmoulins that, for France’s sake, there should be no Republic, now realized how wrong he had been. He was now determined to give everything to the Revolution, to make up for his initial weakness.

Sophie understood him well. She didn’t mind living modestly, as long as there was a roof over their heads and food for her husband, herself, and their son. One day, she shared a decision that proved she had also adopted the revolutionary ideals for which he fought: “I have something to tell you,” she announced one evening over dinner, “I’ve decided to renounce superstition.”

- You’re no longer Catholic? asked the printer, incredulous.

-No, I am no longer Catholic, confirmed the young woman, her tone both lighthearted and resolute. That superstition has only served to infantilize the French people and keep them under the yoke of oppressors. Let’s not forget that, not long ago, the Church punished people with death for imaginary blasphemies, while the clergy, far from living an ascetic life, accumulated the people’s wealth. The fight you lead with our patriots is just: de-Christianization is necessary. The Revolution must make reason triumph.

That evening, they had a joyful discussion about how she wanted to help him more. Of course, her priority had to remain the education of their son, so that he could become a good and virtuous republican, but she could help in other reasonable ways, within the limits imposed on a true republican woman.

Momoro did not share the views of his former friend, the current prosecutor of the Paris Commune, Chaumette, whom he found too misogynistic. He believed that women should primarily assist the men who led the battles. They could discuss politics in private, attend National Convention sessions, help their husbands or sons, and play a role in the grand events necessary to safeguard the Revolution, but they should not be given more active political rights, unlike what some deputies like Charles Gilbert Romme thought.

When Momoro realized, during a mission as a national commissioner, that his book Traité had to be printed urgently, he sent a letter to his wife to handle it. He had warned her that he would entrust her with printing manuals or pamphlets he couldn’t oversee due to distance and administrative duties. She carried out the task carefully, as she did in so many areas.

When Momoro’s mission in Vendée dragged on, his wife and son came to join him. She shared her husband’s view that too many mistakes had been made and that some generals, still loyal to the monarchy, were deliberately losing crucial battles for the Republic's survival. She wasn’t surprised to see parts of Vendée in a deplorable state due to the defeats of republican troops, while in Paris, some ignorantly claimed that certain places were secure. He did not hesitate to express his opinion in a letter. Of course, efforts were made by valiant republicans at war, but it was time for the truth to come out clearly and without ambiguity. To conclude his letter, he added that his son's opinion, though he was still a child, already aligned with those of his parents.

When he returned to Paris, his wife played the role of the Goddess of Reason several times, proud to contribute to the Revolution. On the 15th of Frimaire, Year II, she fulfilled her duties at the Temple of Reason. Many praised her grace and beauty, but during the ceremony, she broke her arm after falling from the stretcher. Once the initial shock passed, she did not wait for her arm to heal completely before resuming the atheist ceremonies. Even he was surprised by her determination.

-I don’t see why my attitude would surprise you, she said with a small smile. You constantly say that our Montagnard deputies should be more revolutionary, instead of putting people to sleep, and you’re not happy that a citizen follows your words.

-They’re not my words alone; many of us think that most of them are becoming new Girondins, Sophie, he said softly, thoughtful.

-How could I forget? Hébert even says they’ve become lullers, she responded with a grimace, invoking the name of the journalist.

— Hébert is my ally, replied Momoro. It’s easy to attack him, but have people forgotten his fights against slavery, profiteers, the maximum, and for de-Christianization? He fought for the poor.

— That’s not what I hold against him, she explained. I know alliances are necessary, just as you do. It’s not the language he uses in his paper; after all, Le Père Duchesne is quite successful, though I would have preferred a paper in the style of Marat, who was far better than all the others. The problem is, he’s not honest on certain points. Regarding de-Christianization, he keeps backtracking at times, unlike you, who are the more resolute of the two. He even earns more than you, you who constantly refuse to enrich yourself. And to think he’s become the substitute prosecutor of the Paris Commune... Fortunately, citizen Chaumette is still the prosecutor; otherwise, it would be harder to defend our revolutionary ideas

At that moment, Jean-Antoine decided to join the conversation, wanting to better understand the political issues his parents were defending. They told him it was complex and that he should study first.

« Can I at least attend one of the revolutionary sessions? » he asked, pouting.

-As long as you behave, his mother agreed.

As the conversation wound down, he knew deep down that his wife was right about Hébert. It wasn’t because he had married a former nun. Citizen Marie-Françoise Goupil had a good character and was a dedicated patriot, from what he had seen of her. He had even seen them privately as a couple with their daughter, showing a sincere and touching love between them.

The problem was that Hébert often wavered in his actions. He would sometimes backtrack, particularly on de-Christianization. One day, he endorsed it and recommended it; another day, depending on his interests, he praised “citizen Jesus,” as he called him. Momoro also disliked that in the summer of 1793, while the people of Paris were suffering, Hébert had moved into a more luxurious residence, not to be closer to political clubs or more efficient as a revolutionary, but for personal reasons. Sure, the printing press would have been on the ground floor, but Momoro didn’t see the point, as Hébert already had one near his previous home. He confronted him about it, saying that a man of his importance should live more soberly, out of respect for the Parisian people who were suffering, especially if he aimed for a higher political position. But Hébert laughed in his face, claiming that Momoro needed to be less rigid.

Since those events, Momoro still considered Hébert an important ally, but not as reliable as before. As for Sophie, she had judged him unworthy of fighting alongside them for much longer.

Today, he would have liked to publicly show his disdain for Hébert, for once again trying to retreat during the insurrection that had led them here, when he saw it would fail. To him, it was a great act of cowardice, especially for a man like Hébert, who had such high responsibilities toward the Revolution. But now Hébert was there, in front of him, either constantly shouting or simply pale. So, he couldn’t tell him everything that weighed on his heart. Vincent and Ronsin had already reproached him enough for his behavior in the cell. Momoro didn’t want to add more. He also understood that Hébert was not only crying for himself but also for Marie-Françoise Goupil. Momoro was just as afraid for Sophie, but he knew that pleading for clemency, as tempting as it might be, was not an option. Clemency was reserved for criminals, not for them. They had to carry themselves as dignified patriots until the end, and this obligation applied even more to Hébert, who had sworn to be ready to the next victim after the martyr for liberty, Marat.

Ronsin, who had vowed to die with dignity, remained stoic when he learned that his wife had been arrested two days earlier. It was another blow to the political prisoners, as they had thought Marie-Angélique would be spared, given that she had evaded arrest longer than Hébert’s and Momoro’s wives. She was an enthusiastic supporter of the Revolution, often frequenting circles that many members of the Convention labeled ultra-revolutionary, yet she remained very kind and simple, though sometimes too frank and playful. She did not deserve this.

However, the revolutionary printer knew the commander-in-chief of the Cordeliers well. He saw that Ronsin, too, was downplaying the pain he felt. They had gone to Vendée together, and whenever Ronsin endured terrible ordeals, he hid them well, due to his bravery and fiery temper. But for those who knew him, one could detect some sadness in his eyes.

“No, no, this isn’t possible!” Hébert continued to sob.

“Perhaps we should joke to lighten the mood a little,” Cloots quipped, a highly controversial figure who advocated for the universality of the Revolution while defending colonialism, slavery, and private property. The only thing he shared with them was de-Christianization. Nevertheless, he sought to calm their spirits, knowing he was sentenced to death.

“Instead of watching Hébert in his depression , finish your letter. They’ll come for us soon,” Vincent remarked, approaching him.

“I’ll apologize to Ronsin once I’m done with my letter,” the printer sighed. “We should have listened to him when he said we needed to prepare for the insurrection faster. I listened to Hébert the first time, even though the Convention had already attacked us several times, and he said we needed to delay things. Even Billaud-Varennes and Collot abandoned us, though that was predictable. In the end, we didn’t succeed in easing the people's suffering, especially this winter. I really failed in my task.”

“Ronsin doesn’t hold it against you,” replied Vincent, still calm, though very pale. “You know his temperament. He spoke harshly because he simply wants you to face the guillotine courageously. He knows you did your best, citizen. But he warned me he’d use a stern tone to ensure you meet your end with dignity. If it were to be done over, I’d send you on another mission, with warnings about certain mistakes. As for him,” Vincent added, nodding toward Hébert, who was shaking with sobs, “all his courage has long abandoned him. His inconsistent behavior caused us many problems.”

“I think he did his best,” Momoro replied, simply not to burden the journalist in his final moments, although he was comforted to know that Vincent and Ronsin didn’t blame him. “Let’s not forget his wife has been arrested. There’s a good chance she’ll follow him to the scaffold.”

“Just like many wives of former deputies,” retorted the former secretary of the War Ministry in an annoyed tone. “Do I need to remind you that the wives of the traitors Brissot and Pétion were imprisoned, along with so many others? That our enemy Manon Roland was sent to the guillotine after her Girondist friends tried, unsuccessfully, to send us there first? Hébert knew there was a great risk this would happen, so he shouldn’t complain. Of course, I hope that Marie-Françoise will be spared, as I do for Sophie and Marie-Angélique. But I’ll remind you: you all knew the risks you were taking, and that included your wives.”

“The only thing we can do for them,” concluded Momoro, “is to die with dignity.”

“You’re absolutely right,” Vincent agreed. “Now, you’d better finish your letter to Sophie.”

Sophie… That virtuous citizen, whom he had been lucky enough to call his wife. He couldn’t help but smile as he remembered the day she fulfilled the role she was most proud of: presiding over the reconciliation between former Catholic priests and Protestant ministers. These former religious leaders had agreed that their respective faiths had only been sustained by clerical charlatanism. It was one of the greatest days of his life, seeing both a revolutionary duty accomplished and his wife radiant, a woman he was immensely proud of.

He finished his letter and reread its contents:

Republican woman, preserve your character, your courage. You know the purity of my patriotism. I shall preserve the same character until death. Raise my son in Republican principles. You cannot manage the printing press alone, so dismiss the workers. Hail to the Marat citizenesses! Hail to the Republicans! I leave you my memory and my virtues. Marat has taught me to suffer.

Author's Note:

I originally planned to write a single chapter about Momoro's journey to the scaffold, but I've decided to split it into two parts. The second part will cover the moments from when he joins the condemned on the way to the hairdresser, to the cart, and finally to his execution. In this first part, the focus will be on his reflections on the revolutionary journey he shared with his wife. In the second part, we will delve into his thoughts on his revolutionary actions, including his role during the fall of Louis XVI, his various missions, his early advocacy for a more equitable distribution of property, his friendships with figures like Rossignol, and his struggle against the Convention, the Dantonists, and Robespierre, whom he no longer viewed as truly revolutionary due to a lack of social engagement for him, among other reasons.

(The Hébertists have long been demonized, to the point where popular culture assumes that if they were alienated by the Convention, it was because they were more bloodthirsty than Robespierre, who is already portrayed as a bloodthirsty figure in some caricatured films. This is a myth we need to dispel.)

His downfall was caused by the attempted insurrection he led with his colleagues, his rift with Chaumette, Hanriot, and Pache, and what he thought of the farcical trial and his final journey to the scaffold. We will see both his good and bad actions, his successes and his mistakes. If I have time, I will also touch on the "truce" between the different factions during the abolition of slavery, a moment when people from various political backgrounds celebrated together. This was a beautiful moment and highlights an important, often forgotten, aspect of the revolution that had global repercussions. A true truce (I think those familiar with current French politics know what I mean).

I also want to clarify that Momoro's opinions do not necessarily reflect my own ( as his paternalistic aspect of women for example it would seem that from his writings he has this defect among many others) . I am simply immersing myself in his thoughts.

Regarding Marie-Angélique Lequesne's arrest, it is possible that she was imprisoned two days before the death of her first husband, Ronsin, according to Mémoires, 1760-1820 by Jean-Balthazar de Bonardi du Ménil. It’s also likely that she moved in ultra-revolutionary circles. According to a biography of Dolley Madison , she was very kind, frank, intelligent, and down-to-earth, qualities I have drawn on for inspiration. Washington's political class appreciated her and the future first lady Madison Dolley would be her friend, which shows that she had developed diplomatic skills.

As for Sophie, I imagined that she shared her husband's political convictions, not only because of her strong character, which is evident given the trials she endured, but also because of her loyalty to him, even in the worst moments. It seems she did share his political views, as seen in Momoro’s letter on the Vendée where he refers to her opinions, the fact that he entrusted her with printing a treaty in his absence, her role as the Goddess of Reason, her accompanying him on his mission to the Vendée, and her adoption of his writing style in the assembly.

After Momoro’s death, I considered writing a chapter about Sophie’s life and hardships following her husband’s execution. (This would include another mention of Marie-Angélique, who later had an unhappy marriage with Turreau, though she was appreciated by Washington's political class). I imagined Jean-Antoine, now an adult, questioning his mother about his father's qualities, as well as the criticisms and mistakes that could be leveled against him. (For historical context it would seem that Jean-Antoine he married a woman from Nantes, so in this fiction, I imagine he learned of the criticisms the people of Nantes had of Carrier, who had allied himself with the Cordeliers in Paris, including Momoro, in the attempted insurrection that led to their downfall).

His mother defends his father but acknowledges some of his mistakes. Jean-Antoine is not fully satisfied, even though he remains proud of his parents and the fight they led. He is loyal to them, despite their never being rehabilitated. He simply wants his parents' good deeds to be recognized, while also admitting that, despite the hellish situation they were in, certain actions—such as refusing to disavow Carrier or some of his father's decisions after months of struggling in the Vendée—were missteps. The long-term consequences of de-Christianization also had negative effects.

Not long ago, I highlighted the complexity of the character of Chaumette in this post of Tumblr (one of the most complex figures of the French Revolution, in my opinion) here link. With all the positive and negative things he did, what would your final opinion of him be? As I said, if I ever meet him, I would applaud him, then boo him, and I would keep repeating this cycle. A bit like the cycle of the seasons XD.

According to Laboureau's diary , if I'm not mistaken, Ronsin says he adopted a son. Is this true or not?