14 [sic] [Ventôse] — The caterer who supplies us has informed us of the arrest of Hébert, Ronsin, Vincent, and other scoundrels. As he was very close to Hébert, he had received a letter from his wife conveying these sad news. Father Duchesne has been taken to the Conciergerie prison, his feet and hands bound. […] Momoro's wife has just arrived and confirmed Hébert's arrest to us, informing us of her husband's as well. She told the clerk that they had taken her into custody to prevent her from going to the section to call for her husband, but that this measure would not prevent the patriots from meeting.
25 [Ventôse] — This morning in the garden, people were saying that our caterer had been arrested. He had gone out to defend his friend Hébert. A gendarme arrived, bearing orders that the conspirators should not be allowed to communicate, either verbally or in writing, with anyone outside. The concierge, quite embarrassed, replied that he only suspected the mustachioed man who had arrived yesterday of conspiracy. All correspondence is suspended until further notice.
Diary of Philippe-Edme Coittant, prisoner in the Port-Libre prison, March 14 and 15 1794. Cited in Tableau des prisons de Paris, sous le règne de Robespierre (1795) page 96-97.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
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.
Source: Dictionnaire historique de la Révolution française (Albert Soboul)
Letter from Charles-Philippe Ronsin (one of the leading figures of Hébertism) to Xavier Audouin (one of Hébert’s closest friends and the son-in-law of Jean-Nicolas Pache), 12 December 1792.
“You would shudder, my dear Audouin, if you knew all the schemes being woven against the honest and loyal Pache. I fear that the commissioners of the Convention are being duped by Dumouriez’s braggadocio… Since its entry into Belgium, the army has lived off requisitions, that is to say, from hand to mouth. These requisitions have not been paid for, and they may amount to as much as a million… There has been a furious outcry against Robespierre, who was unjustly suspected of aspiring to dictatorship. Should one remain silent when a dictator stands at the head of our armies, perhaps even more perfidious than the Sylla of Rome and of the Champ de Mars?”
Personal opinion: It was a time when certain revolutionaries were still, in my view, somewhat united against real enemies ( like Dumouriez), before they turned on one another (knowing how Ronsin would eventually end during the struggle between factions, and how Audouin’s later writings would become rather harsh toward Robespierre).
If you want to know more about the Pache family ( and Xavier Audouin) it's here : https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/780207853519732736/the-pache-family-forgotten-revolutionaries-of-a?source=share
For Ronsin Charles-Philippe: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/769225405243752448/the-life-of-charles-philippe-ronsin-from?source=share
Three unpublished speeches by Momoro (Ventôse year II)
I found all of these speeches thanks to the work of the historian Albert Mathiez. The annotations are also his. Here is the link: “Trois discours inédits de Momoro (Ventôse an II)” on JSTOR here Trois discours inédits de Momoro (Ventôse an II) sur JSTOR .
These are Momoro’s last speeches before his arrest and later his execution.
Here is the first speech:
“It seems that today one blushes to possess good faith, and that people have taken it upon themselves to make perfidy triumph. Is cowardice to be the order of the day?
As is moderantism? We no longer recognize one another; we approach each other only with distrust. The purest principles, the most laudable intentions are criminalized. A swarm of other malefactors skillfully poisons everything, and under the mask of hypocrisy they want to pass for virtuous. The germ of moderantism is on the verge of a terrifying development; if one does not hasten to stop it, soon everything will be swallowed up in the abyss of despair. But no—the republicans have courage; they will display it to uphold the rights of man and to put to death any individual who threatens the sovereignty of the people (Declaration of Rights, art. 27).
Journalists in the pay of the moderantists, of those who still carry in their hearts the mourning of royalty, took advantage of their impunity to slander with audacity the Society of the Cordeliers (1). With this counter-revolutionary measure, they wanted to mislead public opinion in order to save criminals whose punishment has long been vainly demanded (2). They wanted the crimes of these scoundrels to fall back upon the most ardent defenders of the rights of citizens. It was quite natural for these rogues to attribute to their accusers the misdeeds they themselves committed against the sovereignty of the people (3).
It also fits well into their infamous plans to assassinate the friends of Marat so as to escape the avenging sword of the law; but the people will never be deceived, and the rogues who seek to mislead them will always learn to know its justice.
In vain would they seek to surround the ardent republicans with terror; these have devoted themselves, and nothing will prevent them from speaking the truths they guarantee with their very heads. Will they be more exposed than they were at the Champ de Mars? (4)
Terror must be the order of the day against scoundrels: such is the wish of the revolutionary government. Such is the aim of the Committee of Public Safety, which we have constantly defended against the slanderous atrocities of the Philipotins. Such is the aim of the Mountain, which we shall likewise defend with the Sans-Culottes. The Mountain is the gathering of republican virtues. Only those who possess them may sit there, according to the will of the people. Those who lack them cannot defend with dignity the cause of liberty, which rests upon all the virtues. This is the mortal combat of virtue against crime. Make virtue triumph, and the people will soon enjoy the happiness that liberty promises them. We form no other wish. The Revolution is not made for individuals in particular, but for the mass of the people".
MOMORO
(1) These “paid journalists” are Camille Desmoulins, who had attacked the Hébertists with exceptional violence in Le Vieux Cordelier, and Guffroy, who joined in through Rougyff.
(2) Amar, in fact, allowed his report on the Chabot affair to drag on beyond permissible limits. He did not even interrogate the administrators of the East India Company, and the Hébertists could plausibly wonder whether he was not an accomplice of the rogues.
(3) Fabre d’Églantine had had Ronsin, Vincent, and Manuel arrested, who were released on 14 Pluviôse.
(4) Allusion to the massacre of republicans at the Altar of the Fatherland on 14 July 1791. Momoro had been imprisoned after the massacre. See my book on the Club of the Cordeliers.
Second speech by Momoro:
The context is that Momoro delivered this second speech when he was president of the Cordeliers Club, in response to the delegation of Jacobins led by Collot d’Herbois.
Club of the Cordeliers
Session of 17 Ventôse, Year II of the French Republic
RESPONSE OF MOMORO,
President of the Society,
to the Delegation of the Society of the Jacobins
"Citizens, brothers and friends, deputies of the Society of the Jacobins,
The enemies of liberty, those mutes who have borrowed the mask of patriotism in order to oppress patriots and destroy the salutary effects of the Revolution, have shamelessly deceived the Committee of Public Safety. The Jacobin Society as well has been misled, and the Cordeliers are glad to see their brothers and friends among them, to give them a new proof of their inviolable attachment to the immortal Declaration of the Rights of Man.
The veil that the Society instantly cast over this picture during the most critical moments of oppression—when these rights were being violated with too much audacity across the entire Republic—this veil it is now going to tear away. If this measure, at first judged necessary, has been unable to lend itself to the seditious designs of the aristocracy, with which the Cordeliers can have nothing in common, the Society will show you even more clearly, by its devoted love of liberty, that it also declares it will uphold those precious rights by every means and with all the energy it displayed in the great events of the Revolution.
The scoundrels who would dare to slander a Society that has at all times been so feared by aristocrats would indeed be cowards! Any faction that declares itself against the defenders of the rights of man will have only ephemeral success; it will pass like the others, and Liberty alone will remain.
We know only Principles. Men are nothing in our eyes when personal considerations endanger those principles; yet we also defend the rights of man in the persons of oppressed patriots. It is well known that the Cordeliers—the true Cordeliers—have never served any faction, that they have foiled them all, and that they will foil them still. Why, then, should one speak to us of Men, we who know only Principles? Justice must be done to the defenders of the rights of man!
Brothers and friends, men are judged by their actions. The Cordeliers have proved themselves—together with the good Jacobins, for Jacobin and Cordelier must be one, since they fight for the maintenance of the same principles. Woe to him who has sowed, and three times woe to him who would dare to sow, division among us who have served the fatherland so well! We must say it, and the annals of the two societies offer the most evident proof of it.
Brothers and friends, convey to the Society of the Jacobins the expression of our sentiments, the manifestation of our principles. Tell them that our institution is the Declaration of Rights, that we will defend it like Marat—whose heart was among us, and whose principles are engraved in flaming characters upon our souls. Tell the Society that together we shall overthrow the oppressors of patriotism; that the energy of their character will assert itself in all perilous circumstances; and that, despite the slanderers, the royalists, the moderates, or the false patriots, we will remain clinging fast to the edifice of the Republic. It shall not be overthrown.
Come often, brothers and friends, among us. Let us enlighten one another on the dangers of the Fatherland and on our duties; you will always find us ready to defend the Republic.
Long live the true Montagnards, long live the French Republic, one and indivisible!"
Here is Momoro’s final speech, delivered on 22 Ventôse. It is likely that he never had the chance to have it printed, as he was arrested shortly afterward.
"A Well-Defined Conspiracy
Against the people and against the most zealous, the most steadfast defenders of their sacred rights, of Liberty, of Equality.
The Awful System of Moderation
Those who fear the scaffolds wish to destroy them. We will not remain silent; we will proclaim the terrible truths that they so fear, and the enlightened people, aware of the secret and perfidious schemes of their most dangerous enemies, will know how to do justice to their true friends.
Marat, invoked now because he can no longer be feared, is insulted every day by these moderates, by these infamous royalists, who have the audacity to openly proclaim themselves his friends. Marat dragged the moderates through the mud, and they remain there in the public eye for eternity, relying on their audacity as scoundrels assured of impunity.
It is in vain that one tries to deceive public opinion; it is in vain that monsters who dare to attack the sovereignty of the people by violating all the rights of nature and citizens attempt it. We repeat it, we say it loudly, and with the deep confidence we have in the virtues of the people: they will not succeed in turning against the true friends of the people an indignation reserved only for the villains.
The people have always loved Marat, admiring the courage he displayed in proclaiming harsh truths amidst the daggers of assassins who had placed a bounty on his head.
Know the people better, monsters, who seek to agitate them and to turn against themselves weapons that liberty has placed in their hands solely to secure their happiness, by crushing all the rogues, hypocrites, and ambitious…
The people have never served the passions of individuals; to think otherwise would be an insult. The people have only ever served their own cause; it is that cause they will defend with all the energy given to them by their love of liberty and hatred of tyranny.
With these great principles established, these eternal truths well recognized, we shall now expose the perfidious system of those cowardly men who, because they lack energy, criminalize those who have it; because they are weak, wish to criminalize those with greater courage, and seek to destroy a revolution founded on all virtues. Those who, having filled their coffers through embezzlement, want to silence those who denounce them; who, for their own interests, seek to propagate in public offices the inseparable vices of prosperity to ensure the happiness of their fellow citizens, refuse to be reminded of the principles of liberty and equality they openly violate; who, because reasoning puts them out of line, resist being brought back; who, because their intellect surpasses that of the good-faith sans-culottes, wish that people do not distrust their often perfidious and dangerous eloquence; who, because they are friends of the patriots, true friends of liberty, acting from their heart without consulting them, want to criminalize even the purest, most laudable virtues, thereby misleading public opinion.
Today they renew the measures of 1789, proposed by the infamous court of the tyrant and executed by the no less infamous Châtelet.
The trial of the patriots of the Champ-de-Mars, who escaped the assassin’s blade of the royalists, is still recent. The murky proceedings related to the events of June 20 have not yet been erased from the pages of history.
Finally, at every remarkable epoch of our revolution, we know that those who initiated these moments, after the first moments of terror that struck the villains, were persecuted and mercilessly thrown into dungeons.
How many arbitrary arrests of the most devoted patriots occurred during these different periods! It is enough to recall the massacres of La Chapelle, of the Champ-de-Mars, of Nancy, of Vincennes, where even young children were thrown into chains.
Well, citizens, the faction of the moderates today follows the same path. They are unmasked; they see themselves doomed; the people already know all the plots, revealed to them by Marat’s friends. Their only remaining means of saving themselves is to hasten the destruction of the ardent republicans who have unmasked them.
What has this faction, which conspires only in the shadows, done? They sought to gather all the scoundrels into their ranks, and there are many. It was easy for them to align them with their cause. They spoke to them of clemency: they hinted at hope, promised to overlook their crimes, lulled them with an ideal happiness, and, as the rogues feared the scaffold, they said: “Let us destroy the scaffold and you will all be saved.” But they were mistaken in their hopes.
The Committee of Public Safety saw this system of oppression and declared: “Let us ensure the inviolability of the properties of patriots, banish the enemies of the Revolution, and let their wealth serve public prosperity!” (1).
This salutary decree was enacted; henceforth, on one side, patriots redoubled their efforts to unmask the traitors, the moderates, the hypocrites; on the other, the faction revealed all the cunning and perfidy that could be used to tarnish the most ardent patriots in public opinion. They said: “In this way, we will turn the second provision of the decree against them.” But the trap was too crude to succeed.
However, through intrigue, they succeeded in sowing momentary doubt about the purity of the patriots’ intentions; they criminalized their energy, skillfully spreading the notion that this energy was merely a counter-revolutionary movement. To support such odious rumors, they sought to destroy in public opinion the formidable and feared Cordeliers society; they claimed it was divided from the Jacobins, and to make people believe this fictitious division existed, they alienated the two societies from fraternal explanations, when in fact no division ever existed on principles defended with energy.
These clarifications exposed the villains and unmasked new traitors. The moderates trembled at the energy of the Cordeliers, so fearful that they saw nothing around them but scaffolds. Yet again, they agitated to bring down those who led them there, who would lead them there, or who would perish themselves because they had more courage than the scoundrels.
Searches, investigations, subpoenas, declarations of anti-liberty plots—all was employed; all who wished to speak were heard; many lost their property, while others, judging only by passion, unknowingly served the faction’s designs. What will be the outcome? It is easy to guess. What was the outcome of the 1790 proceedings, the Champ-de-Mars trial? The people will triumph again, and liberty will be purified of the insects who dare cling to it to deform it.
Did this villainous faction believe they could approach a revolutionary tribunal composed of patriots as they approached the infamous Châtelet? The conduct of the tribunal must have proved to them that only villains end up on the scaffold. Were others sent? But the faction burns to make as many Chaliers as there are patriots pursuing it.
The tribunal itself will pursue it, as it pursues the enemies of the people’s happiness. All the crimes it committed, which it wishes to attribute to the patriots, will rebound on itself. Soon it will be recognized without doubt that it is this faction that guides the sacrilegious hand which drafted the royalist regrets, circulating them in public markets (2). Soon it will likely be recognized, and all evidence favors this view, that it is this faction that agitates the people by alarming them about their means of subsistence, etc.
Yet there is still a new plot to unmask. Investigations are ongoing against the Marat section, against its president, whom the cowards have not yet dared assassinate.
Because this section adopted a decree, which it presented at the following session, aiming to awaken the magistrates’ concern for the people’s subsistence, the president—who expressed no personal opinion but only put the unanimously requested decree to a vote—was reported against.
And this decree, citizens, could it cast suspicion on the intentions of a section known for its great energy, a section constantly slandered, accused as often as Marat himself, where his spirit resides entirely?
Marat section, is this the reward for all you have done to secure liberty? It is beautiful, it is glorious for you to be persecuted.
Your president, whom the faction seeks to destroy, was once summoned to the Convention’s podium for a vigorous decree adopted by you, and he was honored by the law (3) . You received all the honors of the Marat seat; he ascended it. His fearlessness was proclaimed. You chose the principles of your president.
To pursue a republican, the representative of a section that has done everything for liberty, is the height of madness, and the conspiracy is fully unmasked. Cowardly assassins, if you dare!"
(1)Reference to the decree of 8 Ventôse proposed by Saint-Just.
(2)Reference to the incendiary posters which Momoro disavowed.
(3)On October 6, 1792, the Marseille section decided under the presidency of Momoro to proceed with municipal elections by public ballot. Momoro was brought before the Convention for this on October 13. He explained that the section’s decree predated the Convention decree prohibiting public voting and was thus honored.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
Marie Angélique Lequesne, widow of Ronsin and wife of Turreau: from radical Hébertist revolutionary to Baroness of the Empire — and ultimately, to poverty
Once again, I am not infallible, so please feel free to kindly correct me if I am mistaken.I don't know much about this Valais affair under Bonaparte's Consulate. I had to take the only two documents I could find. Please don't hesitate to provide any information if you know.
Note: warning regarding domestic violence, illness, etc...
I would like to apologize for any lack of fluency of these post, as well as for certain language errors or repetitions. My computer is currently experiencing serious issues, and I am at risk of losing this file. For that reason, I am publishing it here as it stands; I plan to revise and improve it later, as I have already been working on it for several days.
Regarding her physical appearance, for now, I haven't found anything concerning Marie-Angélique Lequesne, only that she was reportedly quite pretty according to historian Thomas Fleming.
Marie Angélique Lequesne was reportedly born in Paris on July 18, 1767. She was the daughter of Laurent Lequesne, administrator of accounting for the equipment of the Republic's armies, and the late Agnès Leullier, residing on Boulevard Montmartre. She also had a brother, Alexandre Lequesne, and a sister, Geneviève Gabrielle Lequesne.
According to the unreliable Genanet website, she was reportedly a cantinière (sutleress) in 1793 (which falsely accuses her of embezzlement). But if the position she held was true, it would fit well with the type of woman of action she was. It is also possible that she met her future husband, Charles-Philippe Ronsin, there.
It is difficult to pinpoint the exact date of the marriage ceremony; her marriage contract indicates that it must have taken place on June 15, 1793.
Here is an excerpt from Hérlaut's text "Le Général Rouge Ronsin":
"Ronsin arrived in Paris from Vendée a few days prior. He had left Tours on June 6 to present his operation plan in person to the Committee of Public Safety. The Committee granted Ronsin an audience on June 14 and sent him back to Vendée to continue his mission. Ronsin left Paris around June 18. Therefore, the date of the marriage celebration must be placed between June 11, the date of the contract's signature, and June 18.
The honeymoon of the two spouses was extremely brief, as it does not seem that Ronsin took his young wife to Vendée. His enemies, particularly Philippeaux, would have denounced the pomp and splendor that allegedly characterized citizen Ronsin's stay in Vendée with the vain "general minister," her husband. No document mentioning her presence in Vendée is known.
The marriage contract stipulated that the future spouses "would share all movable and 'coquet' immovable property according to the Commune of Paris."
Ronsin declared that his assets consisted only of "furniture, furnishings, clothes, linen, belongings, jewelry, ready cash, receivables, and other movable property, all amounting to fifteen thousand livres according to the valuation made between the parties."
The future wife "declared that her assets consisted only of the following items: 1° the sum of ten thousand livres, at which she valued her still unliquidated rights in her mother's estate, whose assets were in the possession of Citizen Lequesne, her father.
2° in furniture, furnishings, clothes, linen, belongings, jewelry, ready cash, receivables, and other movable property, all amounting to the sum of seventy thousand livres according to the valuation made between the future wife and the future husband, who agreed to be charged with this sum of seventy thousand livres as a dowry for the future wife."
In the event of the death of one spouse, "the survivor shall take, as a prior claim, and before the division of the community property, the sum of ten thousand livres in furniture of their choice or the said sum in ready cash, at their discretion."
Finally, Ronsin declared that he paid a rent of one thousand livres for his lodging: "but having only occupied it for a short time, he had not yet been assessed for movable property tax, and previously, he only paid 400 livres in rent."
From the clauses of this contract, it can be deduced that Ronsin possessed no personal fortune, and that his future wife, while comfortably situated, did not have considerable resources.
Although everything indicates that Ronsin did not take his wife with him to Vendée (unlike his friend Momoro who did so with his wife Sophie), she nonetheless shared his ideas. She often attended and followed the debates of the Cordeliers Club, as did Marie-Françoise Hébert, Sophie Momoro, the wife of Ancard, Vincent's wife, and Albertine Marat, sister of Jean-Paul Marat. She approved of dechristianization, and this ideology followed her for a very long time in her life, even when she remarried Turreau, this is what was said about them. A.-J. de Rivaz dedicated an entire chapter to them in his Mémoires historiques sur le Valais. Turreau "commits the blunder of not publicly performing any act of the Roman religion"; his wife, Marie-Angélique, "has the audacity to speak of it with contempt," and she does not blush "to say that she had never been happier since she had shaken off the yoke of the Christian superstition in which she had been raised."
She also supported her husband during some of his worst moments. In December 1793, when he and Vincent were arrested and imprisoned, notably on the proposal of Fabre and Philippeaux. Marie-Angélique Ronsin with Vincent's wife often visited him in prison and had lunch in their company. They were released under pressure from the Cordeliers. This episode is detailed here. This certainly did not help with any reconciliation with the CPS (Committee of Public Safety), especially since the CSG (Committee of General Security) pointed out that there was no evidence against them.
When he was later arrested a second time, early in the morning at his home at 27 Boulevard Montmartre, in the presence of his brother Jean-César, then director of military relays, and Marie-Angélique. As he accepted his arrest, Marie-Angélique told one of the aides-de-camp present, "Quick, mount your horse. Go tell Hanriot about my husband's arrest. He greatly contributed to his release (after his first arrest); he might still be able to help him."
While she initially escaped immediate arrest, unlike the wives of Hébert and Momoro who were arrested hours after their husbands, she was arrested in the same apartment on 1st Germinal by "general security measure," and taken to the prison known as Les Anglaises on Rue des Fossés-Saint-Victor. A search of the home took place, and the Revolutionary Committee of the Mont-Blanc section declared that there was nothing suspicious at the Ronsin couple's home and no denunciation against his wife.
She was reportedly very anxious during the three days leading up to her husband's execution. This anxiety only increased upon learning of the death of her husband, his companions, and the death of Hébert's wife. She also feared being accused of complicity and suffering the same fate, according to Herlaut again.
Strangely, while some press outlets had vilified Sophie Momoro and Marie-Françoise Hébert – “Although their lawful husbands had been held in the Conciergerie for two days, it is said that the ‘princesses’ were not found alone when the guards came to arrest them at night. It is perfectly understandable—two widows cannot be left alone in such circumstances; they need consolation” – or others mocked Sophie Momoro's physical appearance and her role as the Goddess of Reason, I found nothing concerning Ronsin's wife. Furthermore, the widows of Vincent and Ancard were spared this arrest, which sometimes shows the somewhat random nature of the arrests of revolutionaries' wives.
Likely out of prudence, Marie-Angélique Ronsin made no efforts to be released until 22 Thermidor (even when Sophie Momoro was released in Prairial Year II). From that date, she addressed a request for release to the Committee of General Security. She declared that she had "in no way shared her husband's errors" and that it was necessary for her to be free, "all the more necessary as, having no fortune, the work of her hands becomes indispensable to provide for her existence." She received no reply and made her request again on 27 Thermidor, asking for the reasons for her detention.
Her prison stay seems to have been very difficult, judging by her request of 23 Fructidor in which she provided a certificate written by health officers working in prisons and detention centers, stating that she "had been suffering for six months from violent headaches, dizziness, a continuous noise in her right ear; towards recent times had an apoplectic attack in which blood came out of her ears very abundantly." They requested that she receive appropriate treatments such as baths, bloodletting, and mineral water, and that this be done immediately as it could be fatal for Marie-Angélique Ronsin. Nevertheless, there was no response to this request either.
However, on 28 Vendémiaire Year III, when she requested "a copy of her prison register entry," the prison warden was ordered to give it to her.
The Lequesne family decided to work for her release, more specifically, her sister Gabrielle, wife of Poitevin,made a new intervention to the Committee of General Security. There was no document anywhere against Marie-Angélique Ronsin, and according to her family, the reason for her arrest was "her husband's affair in which she was in no way involved," and they requested "to return to a father, a daughter, and to brothers, a sister who has been lamenting in prison for more than six months." Her release took place shortly after, and on 18 Brumaire Year III, the seals were lifted from her home.
She then began to request from the Committee of General Security the recovery of her property, since, according to the terms of the marriage, she was a creditor in her husband's estate for the sum of ten thousand francs. In addition, her husband possessed a rather substantial library of dramatic works (which was not surprising given that her husband, before his revolutionary career, was connected to the artistic and literary milieu to the point of being friends with Jacques-Louis David); she requested to recover this property as well.
The decree of 6 Germinal Year III ruled in her favor; she benefited from the restitution of furniture and other effects worth 5135 livres, and the library was valued at 2152 livres.
On 14 Floréal Year III, Marie-Angélique Ronsin declared, "I, the undersigned, acknowledge having received all the furniture and effects included in the inventories that were made at my home, for which I discharge," signing "Widow Ronsin." Some of the carriages found at the Ronsin couple's home and the horses were sold. Some for 788 livres paid on 5 Floréal to the receiver of the domain.
Some national carriages were used for "the service of deputies and public officials on mission." The others were sold.
Following her release, Marie-Angélique Ronsin went to live on Rue des Deux-Portes. But she continued her revolutionary activities even after her husband's death, and she can be counted among the opponents of Thermidorian politics. According to Balthazar de Bonardi du Ménil, she frequented what he called "ultra-revolutionary clubs." It is possible that he was referring to the Electoral Club (many of whose members would be arrested or implicated due to the Prairial uprising), animated mainly by revolutionaries like Bodson, Varlet, Legray, and Babeuf, even though an arrest warrant was issued again against the main members of this club on 3 Brumaire, and its sessions only ceased on 22 Frimaire. It is also possible that du Ménil was referring to the Pantheon Club.
In any case, the widow Ronsin subscribed to the Tribun du Peuple, continued to frequent her husband's former companions like General Rossignol, but also Parein du Mesnil, even when these two were involved in the Conspiracy of Equals (though acquitted), which suggests that Marie-Angélique Ronsin in some way approved of Babouvism.
This was not surprising, as Ronsin was close to Rossignol and must have frequented Parein, whether in Vendée or Lyon (Parein being one of the main figures responsible for the repression in Lyon alongside people like Collot d'Herbois or Fouché, whereas Ronsin's role is still more complex to this day).
On 12 Pluviôse Year IV, she married General Louis-Marie Turreau, who was a friend of Ronsin. They had five children together: Emma, called Théodore, born August 8, 1796, and died August 21, 1872; Alexandrine-Cléophée, 1798, died June 24, 1879; Joseph-Alphonse, born July 25, 1799, died July 16, 1800; Edouard-Henri-Théodore, born July 4, 1802, died on an unknown date; and Auguste-Pierre, born July 24, 1806, and died January 3, 1870. The latter wrote to Charles-Philippe Ronsin on good terms, as you can see here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/766971097091538944/letter-from-turreau-to-ronsin-and-the-complex?source=share, but this did not prevent him, in order to save himself, from saying that Ronsin was responsible for a defeat in Vendée, whereas Turreau was the real culprit according to historian Jean-Clément Martin.
After the execution of Gracchus Babeuf, Turreau became the adoptive father of his son Camille Babeuf. It is possible that, given Marie-Angélique Turreau was later described as generous to the unfortunate in America and due to her sympathy for Babeuf, she convinced her husband of this adoption. In a way, she can also be considered Camille's adoptive mother.
In Fructidor Year V, "Turreau, then unemployed, along with Parein, Rossignol, and others, joined Augereau". That evening, "Marie-Angélique, still frequenting the Jacobins and dressed as an Amazon, rode on horseback. She led a column of Jacobins from the Faubourg Saint-Antoine and, in the company of Parein and Rossignol, congratulated the Directory on its victory".
General Turreau received a new assignment after this event. He reportedly had the support of his cousin, who was a deputy. According to Hérlaut, this cousin was married to a woman named Félicie Gautier. And she reportedly had an affair with Bonaparte, who commanded the army's artillery. When Bonaparte became commander-in-chief of the Army of Italy, despite Turreau not being re-elected as a deputy, he was appointed army storekeeper. Later, under the Empire, when she was in destitution, Berthier would inform Napoleon of her situation, providing financial aid.
Thus, one of the reasons he would have helped Louis-Marie Turreau and his wife advance was due to his cousin.
Nevertheless, there were other reasons. Indeed, apart from their cousin, the Turreau couple clearly rallied to Bonaparte's regime along with some fervent Jacobins (despite Napoleon loathing this political category, especially those on the left, though he could make exceptions) such as Drouet, Parein du Mesnil, etc.
Under the Consulate, Louis Marie-Turreau was sent "to Valais, at the head of the occupation troops with whom he achieved successes against the Coalitions, notably before Suze, which he brilliantly invested," according to historian Jean Clément Martin.
It was in this context that the Kalbermatten affair reportedly emerged, which I found only from Rivaz, Michel Salamin, and Michel de Preux.
Indeed, Louis-Marie Turreau's mission under the Consulate was to bring Valais closer to France, even to annex it. According to former State Chancellor René de Preux, in 1801, the general had established his headquarters in the Vallaz house and "His despotic methods, reminiscent of the time when he commanded the thirty infernal columns in Vendée, quickly became intolerable to the entire population, which years of misfortune had already plunged into deep misery. He plundered administrative coffers, sequestered tax revenues, arbitrarily dismissed public officials, arrested them, and proclaimed urbi et orbi the imminent annexation of Valais to France." To "protest against this project of annexation to France, dear to General Turreau, deputies from 74 communes of Upper and Lower Valais left for Bern in February 1802." This was presented "on behalf of the Valais deputation by the Vice Grand Bailiff, Pierre-Antoine de Preux, a member of the Supreme Tribunal."
Among the deputation from the commune of Sion was Louis Grégoire de Kalbermatten, who was born "October 6, 1768, the son of Gabriel de Kalbermatten and Louise née Barberini. He served in the Courten regiment in France from 1788 to 1796. Knight of St. Louis, he married Marie-Antoinette Louise de Nucé, daughter of Gaspard Benjamin and Marie Barbe de Tornery, city councillor of Sion, in 1803. In 1814, he entered the service of Piedmont and had a brilliant career there. Elected mayor of the city of Sion in 1838, he died in that city on November 8, 1845" (according to René de Preux). Louis de Kalbermatten was a fervent defender of Valais's independence and opposed General Turreau's policy aimed at attaching the region to France.
Following this, Turreau forcibly requisitioned Kalbermatten's house, a rather large three-story dwelling, to make it his headquarters, and this reportedly exacerbated tensions to the point where "He (Kalbermatten) protested vigorously, threatening to grab the General by the collar and set fire to his house." Turreau was able to carry out this action with the help of Bailiff Augustini, who was one of the heads of the Valaisan government. Marie-Angélique also played a significant role in this, according to historian Michel Salamin. Each time Louis de Kalbermatten tried to obtain an audience with the general, it was his wife who received him and reportedly put forward several reasons that seemed flimsy to justify preventing him from recovering his house, citing some of her husband's health issues. However, it seems clear that she supported her husband's actions on this point.
She was staying with her husband, her children, and her servants, namely a chambermaid named Marie Guilmar, a cook named Catherine Vodelay, and a wet nurse named Jeanne-Marie Morisod.
However, she played a rather important role on September 5, 1803. There had been an official banquet that afternoon, organized, among others, by Bailiff Augustini, to celebrate the anniversary of Valais's independence. Augustini had gathered a small number of guests for a banquet, including Marie-Angélique Turreau. Also present were "Joseph de Lavallaz, Jean-Joseph Duc (...), the Grand Dean Oggier, the Grand Vicar Pignat, the Vice-Chatelain Janvier de Riedmatten, Mayor François Joseph de Riedmatten, Commander Valet, and Adjutant Monthion."
Europe the greatest good, peace; upon France, her religion, her prosperity, her greater and more respectable homeland; upon Valais, her own and her dear independence! Long live the immortal, invincible, and benevolent Bonaparte, First Consul of the Italian Republic, mediator of the Swiss Republic, restorer of the independence of the Valaisan Republic!" Still according to Michel Salamin, following multiple toasts, "The main ones are addressed to the French, Italian, and Swiss commissioners, to General Turreau, to State Councillor Louis Lambertenghi, and to Senator Charles Müller-Friedberg. The general's wife receives her own, as do the French officers."
Two hours later, the "Louis de Kalbermatten" affair would erupt.
Indeed, while Marie-Angélique was absent, dining in an inn owned by a certain Jean-Joseph Bruttin in the presence of Captain Cudenne and his wife, two panes of glass from her third-floor bedroom window were broken by a stone, as well as one from an adjacent room (perhaps her children's). The wet nurse and the chambermaid took refuge at Mme Alphonse de Kalbermatten's house, while the cook went to alert Madame Turreau.
Grand Bailiff Augustini interrogated Louis de Kalbermatten in front of her and several local dignitaries. Augustini asked him where he had been, forcing him to explain that he had been at Jean-Joseph Bruttin's until 7 PM, then at home, and denied going into his garden, but for Augustini, his guilt was established with meager, even non-existent, evidence.
Louis de Kalbermatten was reportedly mistreated by several French officers, both verbally by Commander Valet and physically by aide-de-camp Maussaud, who allegedly held him by the collar. But the most violent reaction was reportedly from Captain Cudenne, who allegedly grabbed, shook, and roughed him up.
Marie-Angélique Turreau was then among the women who prevented the officers from continuing their brutality against Kalbermatten and ensured he was safely escorted out, although he would be imprisoned for it.
Preux would say that Marie-Angélique Turreau had a real fright, but Rivaz claimed that she reportedly said, "It's a bit much that they want to assassinate me on the anniversary of the independence generously given to liberal Valais by the Great Nation! They will talk about it in Paris, and this attack will cause a stir there."
Preux would affirm that when the commission "confirmed, by taking this iron piece to the kitchen, that it was indeed part of the kitchen's fire-dog. General Turreau intervened at that moment, saying in a sharp tone: 'We are dwelling on small things and wasting precious time!'
Upon this, she ordered the chambermaid to inform the servants to hitch the horses and prepare everything for departure, for she added:
'I am no longer safe here.' Mr. Duc, President of the commission, reassured her about her personal safety and offered her a sufficient guard.
Mrs. Turreau calmed down a little and thanked him, assuring him that she had greatly appreciated the promptness with which the Grand Bailiff had attended to her security, and she declared: 'I will report this to Paris!' "
She rejoined her husband in Paris in the last days of September.
Despite an alibi and scant evidence, Kalbermatten remained in prison for months. He was acquitted, which was seen as a humiliation for the "pro-French" side.
Louis-Marie Turreau was appointed ambassador to the United States by Napoleon and arrived in the capital in 1804. His wife arrived in that country months later. He lived mainly in Baltimore and she in Washington.
Unlike her husband, who had a bad reputation in Washington, it seemed to have been the opposite for her. Susan Wheeler Decatur, a well-known personality in society, daughter of a wealthy mayor of Norfolk, Virginia (whom some sources say Aaron Burr and Jérôme Bonaparte had proposed to, which she refused), and having chosen to marry Stephen Decatur, described Marie-Angélique in these terms in a letter to Dolley Payne Madison: "Washington is by this time illuminated by the presence of Made Turreau ". Decatur implied that, beyond outward appearances, Madame Turreau possessed “something that passeth show,” and praised her quiet generosity. During her stay, she is said to have provided significant material support to several French families in distress, thus demonstrating sincere benevolence and a concrete commitment to her compatriots.
But Marie-Angélique then formed a much deeper friendship with Dolley Payne Madison, wife of James Madison, then Secretary of State of the United States.
Dolley Madison met Marie-Angélique Turreau through Sally McKean, wife of the Spanish minister Carlos Fernando Martinez de Yrujo, when the latter introduced her to the wives of ministers or ambassadors. Indeed, Dolley Madison frequented high society and already played an active political role. Dolley Madison established herself as a central figure in Washington's social and political life. She skillfully bypassed Jefferson's prohibition on women's involvement in politics by cleverly blending hospitality and political connections. She surrounded herself with influential women such as Margaret Bayard Smith, Anna Maria Thornton, and Marcia Burns Van Ness. She earned the esteem of her contemporaries through her charm, vivacity, and affable manners. She introduced novelties at her receptions, such as card games, which made her evenings very popular. She played a key role in warmly welcoming foreign diplomats to a still undeveloped capital. She compensated for the reserve of Jefferson and her husband James Madison with her sociability. Her home became an essential place of informal power in Washington. Through her influence, she contributed to the evolution of women's place in the public sphere.
Marie-Angélique Turreau played an additional role in Dolley Madison's political journey, notably by teaching her French very intelligently and encouragingly, and by giving her advice on how to dress with "Parisian panache," among other things. Some of the skills she taught her would prove useful when Dolley Madison became the First Lady of the United States a few years later. The two women got along extremely well; Dolley Madison wrote to her sister how much she appreciated Marie-Angélique Turreau who, with her wicked sense of humor, made her laugh. James Madison's wife emphasized that the French "are very pleasant overall and add enormously to my comfort here." The friendship between the two women transcended language barriers, as Madison amusingly noted: "She speaks no English but we understand each other very well," and they shared several daily activities: walks, rides, informal visits, and long impromptu conversations. Madison also greatly appreciated her French manners, which could sometimes seem eccentric in the United States, such as dressing according to "French ideas." Marie-Angélique Turreau reportedly showed generosity, according to Madison, "shows me everything she possesses, and would even want to give me everything."
Furthermore, Turreau's wife, in addition to frequenting American high society, was still very much interested in American politics, according to some letters.
Nevertheless, this was also the beginning of troubles for her again. Everything indicates that long before America, the Turreau couple did not get along at all, hence the fact that he arrived first in the United States and she only joined him months later. Some claimed he did not want her to follow him there. In any case, they lived in constant quarrel. Unlike his wife, he was not truly appreciated in America (even if James Madison found him moderate and Jefferson maintained a professional relationship without political incident). He was physically described pejoratively as "bald head, red face, and mustache." It was said that he had "terrible" temper and was "morbidly depressed."
The reputation he had acquired following the brutal repression in Vendée certainly did not help, but also, among other things, the mistreatment he inflicted on his wife and surely on others did not improve his reputation. One congressman called him a "savage," another man named William Plumer said of him, "This is disgraceful that such a man should be the representative of a nation." Another senator wrote, "I have never yet beheld a face so cruel and sanguinary as his." It is very clear in my opinion that it was not only his past repression in Vendée that caused his unpopularity. He did not hesitate to beat her in private and in public, and it quickly became public. He even went so far as to have her whipped in front of the servants and asked his secretary to play the flute to cover his wife's screams because of the neighbors. One day Marie-Angélique, either at her wits' end from the mistreatment she suffered or for fear for her life, once hit him in the head with a flatiron; he then struck her with a cane.
Their home became atrocious for Marie-Angélique, her servants, and her children, who also regularly screamed when their father attacked their mother. Turreau was also very unfaithful to his wife, and he insisted that prostitutes come to their home, which must have made the atmosphere there even worse.
Despite the indignation of many at Marie-Angélique's treatment, few people helped her due to her husband's position.
Dolley Madison hated Turreau for what he was doing to her friend but asked her sister not to repeat what she had said, as it would make the French appear as hateful as he, in her opinion. Furthermore, she overcame her disgust for him for essential diplomatic reasons in public.
According to Hoadley and others, Turreau, then jealous of his wife, planned to forcibly send her back to France and thus separate her from their children. When he began to lock her up at home, he eventually decided to call a troop to force her repatriation.
Marie-Angélique, understanding the plan, reportedly sent a message to Dolley Madison asking for help.
Still according to Hoadley's version, one of Marie-Angélique's servants allegedly raised the alarm to help her while she screamed "murder," which caused a crowd to gather outside their home, and despite Turreau invoking his wife's madness, the crowd reportedly took her to safety.
In another link on Jstore (although I don't remember the exact title of the text), the following excerpt stated:
"The general declared in writing on October 29, 1806: 'I declare positively that after many refusals by Mrs. Turreau to go to France, in accordance with my orders as her husband and as plenipotentiary minister of His Imperial and Royal Majesty, my intention was to use force to make her go; that, therefore, after preparing her departure on a ship (in Annapolis), I gave her repeated orders to leave, when her screams, despite my efforts to calm her, attracted a crowd of citizens (Americans) around my house; and despite my public position as minister to France and the privileges that it entails, I went to the door of my house, where a magistrate among them told me that the people had gathered due to the noise they had heard from my house; to which I asked him to enter my house to see the interior and satisfy his fellow citizens.'"
Magistrate Thornton declared to him: "In consequence of the invitation given above to the aforementioned magistrate (W. T.) as well as to Wm P. Gardner, last night around ten o'clock, we went to the house of the French minister and were led to an upstairs room where we found his wife with three French sailors or soldiers who were ready to take her by force. She tearfully declared that she sought the protection of the United States from such violence. The general turned to the sailors and said: 'Mark this, citizens; she is asking for the protection of the United States and thus renounces mine.' She said that the French government would not protect her now, but that she would seek protection from France later. We intervened in a friendly manner and asked if it would not be more appropriate, in the title of an officer of the Legion of Honor, to allow his wife to leave in peace, rather than subject her to the brutal insults of ordinary sailors who had been ordered to take her by force? It was also mentioned to her by W. T. that the crowd was waiting quietly to see if an attempt would be made to take her by force; for if that was attempted, they had said they were determined to free her. He said that the heartbreaking details of the separation are omitted, except to say that, on her knees, she pleaded to see her children one last time, and at his categorical refusal, he finally gave in, but only at the prayer of her foreign friends in his arms to 'take the infant.' She left the house, at the corner of Seven Buildings (Pennsylvania Avenue and 19th Street), with the magistrate and his associate."
Another version of the facts found here, according to Augustus Foster https://www.jstor.org/stable/1923081, is that Judge Thornton ordered the forced opening of the doors to finally stop the ill-treatment she was subjected to, believing that Marie-Angélique Turreau's protection outweighed the diplomatic privilege that Turreau was abusing.
Furthermore, in a book dedicated to Dolley Madison, I found the following excerpt: "Eventually, the neighbors became indignant and threatening. At the height of the uproar, the eccentric Dr. Thornton arrived and stopped the beating. When Turreau fiercely told Thornton, 'Dr. Thornton, you do not know de law of de nation,' Thornton replied, 'But I know the laws of humanity, and I intend to enforce them.' "
In any case, from late 1806 until March 1809, she lived in quarters in Georgetown without the financial support that Turreau had promised the judge so she could return to France. Nevertheless, she was able to recover her children, but they lived in poverty during this period. Marie-Angélique Turreau's situation caused a public incident because the Washington Federalist newspaper reported the entire story with the aim "that it be circulated throughout the Union" and that Madame Turreau was in destitution with her children.
The Dolley Madison Digital Edition website says that the newspaper may have used this story to embarrass President Jefferson and his administration, as it was an opposition newspaper.
Dolley Madison wrote about this to Anna Maria Thornton on August 26, 1807, that she supposed Madame Thornton, before leaving Washington, had seen Marie-Angélique Turreau, that there would have been an address in her favor, hoping that this would force Turreau to finally give his wife and children the necessary financial support. Moreover, it seems that a Madame Forrest, wife of the official of the time, Richard Forrest, one of the eight clerks of the State Department (then a friend of Dolley Madison, William Thornton, among others), generally checked on Madame Turreau's condition. Dolley Madison herself was very worried about her friend.
Louis Marie-Turreau knew the rumors that resulted from his conduct and "wrote to his friends in the French Foreign Office that he was almost mad with mortification and despair." according again to The Dolley Madison Digital Edition website, which did not prevent him from continuing to refuse to help Marie-Angélique and their children. Nevertheless, Napoleon Bonaparte did not act against him for these, and there was no trace of reprimand whatsoever for the public incidents caused by Turreau, which allowed a newspaper to potentially use instruments to discredit the Jefferson administration, nor the fact that because of this, he lost a support, which was his wife, who was very appreciated and loved by at least part of the political elite.
In March 1809, the judge finally managed to raise funds for Marie-Angélique Turreau. However, she returned at the same date as her husband in 1811, and they began a formal divorce process. According to this link https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-01-02-033 Turreau had even taken steps with Joséphine de Beauharnais without success. He was made Baron of the Empire in 1811, and consequently, Marie-Angélique also became one.
In 1813, they finally divorced, but according to the rembarre website, Louis-Marie Turreau had forcibly placed their daughter Alexandrine in a convent in Conches, but Marie-Angélique managed to remove her by summary judgment on September 22, 1814.
What is certain is that Marie-Angélique managed to obtain custody of her children. During the First Restoration, Turreau rallied to Louis XVIII and received the Order of Saint-Louis. He also accompanied the Duke of Angoulême to Vendée in 1816, then lived in Conches and died on December 10, 1816.
Marie-Angélique Lequesne, widow Ronsin and divorced Turreau, experienced severe financial difficulties with her four children. She made requests for assistance to various Ministers of War. In 1819, she sent a letter to Gouvion Saint-Cyr (Minister of War), describing herself not as a divorcée but rather as "the widow of a general officer who died without fortune and leaving four minor children in my care, three boys and one girl; due to circumstances, she is reduced to living on the fourth floor, 139, Rue Montmartre, to serve herself and to perform all the domestic chores, especially at an advanced age (she was 52 at that time) and with her health deteriorating from a series of sorrows."
On December 12, 1826, she was finally granted a pension of 1500 francs (whereas Turreau, during his lifetime, had a maximum pension of 6000 francs).
After Turreau's death, certainly out of attachment to the United States, and surely to escape the "atmosphere" of the royalist regime, which likely had little goodwill for a woman who had been Widow Ronsin, she decided to return to that country and found a school, but did not succeed. "She only managed to return to France by incurring debts of honor abroad to secure her passage."
In 1827, she reportedly made a request to the director of domains to have a prefectural decree of the Seine dated June 21, 1804, executed concerning the restitution of a succession profit from her first husband, explaining that by following her second husband Turreau to America, she was unable to make this request for execution at the time. But she was told that her property had been returned to her and there was no trace of the carriages, whose fate the administration was unaware of. As for the request for restitution of papers, she received the answer, after meticulous research, that the papers were of no interest at the time and had been destroyed.
She died on February 15, 1828, in Paris, likely in destitution.
Her eldest son, Théodore, became a Knight of the Legion of Honor in 1839, a retired captain, and died unmarried.
Her daughter Alexandrine Cléophée lived a life of precarity. Here's what the newspaper Le Bien public said about her in 1878: "We draw the attention of the Minister of War to a great misfortune to be alleviated. It concerns the 78-year-old daughter of Republican General Louis-Marie Turreau, who lives in Nancy, in the Sainte-Anne district.
Mademoiselle Turreau, one of our correspondents writes, has no resources; she has long lived in true distress.
In 1876, a local newspaper, La Sentinelle, organized a subscription for her benefit, which yielded the meager sum of 225 francs, and that was all.
Republican France, for whom General Turreau fought with such brilliance against the Vendée bands commanded by Charette and Larochejacquelin, owes it to itself to help the unique heiress of this glorious name, engraved on the Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile, west side.
When there is talk of voting a pension of ten thousand francs to the widow of Bonapartist General d'Aurelle de Paladines, would one hesitate to grant Mademoiselle Turreau an alimony that would prevent her from starving?" She died unmarried a year later after the article appeared, in a hospice.
The third sibling, Édouard-Henri-Théodore, married in Mexico and seemed to remain there. He married twice and had several children, the most famous of whom was Eduardo Turreau de Linières, one of the founders of the Lancasterian Society, among other achievements.
As for Auguste-Pierre, he was possibly a man of letters and secretary of the sub-prefecture of Bayonne. He may have remarried twice and had two daughters.
(My sources regarding the fate of Marie-Angélique's children are on this site, so it's not really reliable "ÉVREUX - CONCHES-EN-OUCHE (27) - LOUIS-MARIE TURREAU DE LINIÈRES DE GARAMBOUVILLE DANS LE DÉPARTEMENT DE L'EURE - La Maraîchine Normande)
Marie-Angélique Lequesne's Personality, Hypotheses, and Reflections:
Marie-Angélique had a very left-leaning orientation and was an "ultra-revolutionary," at least until she rallied to Bonaparte. She often followed the sessions of the Cordeliers Club and supported her first husband during his lifetime, doing everything she could for him when he faced difficulties, such as sharing meals with him when he was imprisoned the first time, and when he was imprisoned the second time, instinctively asking influential people of their political persuasion for help to save him (like her request for help from Hanriot). If she posthumously denounced her first husband by speaking of his "errors," it was only a few months after his death, and she could potentially have been in danger (especially since, as mentioned earlier, the fate of spouses seemed entirely random). When she emerged from her dreadful prison stay, she continued her activism and actively fought Thermidorian politics while remaining in contact with her first husband's close associates and friends. It is possible that, like other revolutionaries, she feigned submission in letters while imprisoned to better emerge and continue her struggle.
She remained politically left-wing at that time. It is also possible that she married Turreau for security (as being the widow of a man not rehabilitated at the time, seen as an "extremist," could be difficult), as well as being impressed that he refused all amnesty when imprisoned to be rehabilitated in 1795.
Therefore, she cannot truly be classified as a weathercock, as she was one of the active opponents of the Directory, even at the worst moments, although she later actively rallied to the Napoleonic regime, both in Valais and in the United States. But she was not the only left-wing figure to do this; François Réal did, as did Drouet (even if Drouet refused all promotions beyond sub-prefect). It is nevertheless strange that Marie-Angélique Lequesne did not express her most fervent opposition to Bonaparte's responsibility for the deaths of several of her comrades in arms, such as her Babouvist friends (notably her friend Rossignol, with whom she was always in contact; according to Bélanger, he was not even on the list of Jacobins to be deported, it was Bonaparte himself who added him, which led to his death). I would have liked to know more about her state of mind. Perhaps she had a reactionary turn, or perhaps not.
If she was indeed a cantinière for the French army in Belgium at some point, this, in addition to the Amazonian outfits she wore under the Directory, confirms that she was a woman of action. Furthermore, she always spoke with aides-de-camp, whether with her first or second husband, dined with military captains and their wives, not to mention her good relations with other generals. She could therefore have good relationships with certain army personalities.
But she also presents a certain interesting paradox of personality. She married twice to men who at times had rather expeditious methods (especially Turreau); she often frequented Parein du Mesnil (at least during the French Revolution, whether before or after the Conspiracy of Equals), who was one of the main figures responsible for the repression in Lyon, and she knew it. Similarly, if Salamin, Preux, and Rivaz are telling the truth (although some passages make me think they demonized her), she bears some responsibility for the attempted political downfall of Kalbermatten and the imprisonment of an innocent man.
On the other hand, she showed great generosity, whether to people who more or less shared her politics (like her possible involvement in her husband Turreau adopting Camille Babeuf after his father's death) or simply to other people, as Susan Wheeler Decatur states that Marie-Angélique helped several French families in distress in 1805. Her generosity thus extended even to people who would not advance her "personal career" or when they were in disgrace.
She is also described by Dolley Madison as "kind, intelligent, generous, simple, and curious." In the opinion of Washington's political figures, she therefore fared very well.
Furthermore, she had a great sense of humor. Not to mention that it was she who prevented Kalbermatten from being mistreated, even though she considered him an enemy.
I have a hypothesis to better understand her personality: I think that yes, she indeed possessed all the qualities mentioned above, that she was surely demonized to better destroy her first husband's reputation, first by people like Philippeaux, then by others when she surely married Turreau (like many women of the French Revolution), but that she also believed that when the homeland was in danger, the most extreme means should be used to save it, even if it meant employing Turreau's methods. Similarly, when a territory needs to be annexed, if she felt anti-French sentiment in opposition, she could use unfair methods. This was not out of sadism, but because she wanted the safeguarding of France and the revolutionary gains above all (even if at times this actually worsened the situation, as happened after the Infernal Columns). Nevertheless, she believed in the right to a trial, even for those she disliked, and was opposed to lynching her adversaries.
She also possessed diplomatic qualities, as seen in America, where she was sincerely loved by the American elite( or at least by a lot of them).
She could be pragmatic, as when there was no other recourse, she asked the Bourbons for help once the Restoration was definitive and declared herself the widow of a man she had divorced, as she was living in limited circumstances with her four children (she must have returned to France with the means her friends gave her, and the divorce costs must have been significant, especially to obtain custody of her children), but at no point did she rally to that regime. She surely wanted to leave that regime later and try a new start in America, but alas, that did not work and plunged her even further into destitution. Her pragmatism and prudence were also displayed in 1794 when she was imprisoned by deliberately not taking steps to be released for the first few months.
I believe that Marie-Angélique Lequesne, widow Ronsin and divorced from Turreau, is the perfect example of the tragedy of women victims of domestic violence in the 18th and 19th centuries (and even in the 21st century in some respects). The moment her second husband decided to make her life a hell, she was unfortunately "stuck" and had no recourse, even more so with the retrograde Napoleonic laws that made wives even more vulnerable to violent husbands. He benefited from great legal impunity for what he inflicted upon her, and she could do nothing but physically defend herself and protect her children. It was her American friends who helped her minimally (and even then, it took a long time), but neither foreign ministry employees nor Bonaparte, who was aware of it, helped her at a time when she could have died given the blows Turreau inflicted. I imagine the mistreatment must have started early, long before they arrived in the United States. Perhaps even at the beginning of their marriage. The moment she could finally have a legal escape to leave him and take the children with her, he made her and their children live in destitution while he lived more than comfortably. Even in death, he was a nuisance to her since he left her barely any money for herself and her four children. Turreau betrayed his friend Ronsin a first time by blaming him for a defeat for which he was actually responsible, at a time when Ronsin was truly under attack.He betrayed him a second time, this time posthumously, in a more atrocious and gratuitous manner by treating his wife horribly.
It is a pity that Marie-Angélique is a completely forgotten figure, even though she was active both during the French Revolution and under the Napoleonic period and had a very interesting, albeit tragic, destiny. But I think this also partly stemmed from the fact that she was an Hebertist. Robespierre is highly demonized in popular media and films in general, those even further to his left are either forgotten or made even "worse." Similarly, concerning the Napoleonic period, it must be emphasized that among the "Napoleonic ladies," she had one of the least acceptable political pasts: an Hebertist with Babouvist tendencies . If that's the case, it would be sexist because she wasn't the only one with this political past; other men had it and are a little more "understood." This political combination must not have pleased at all (again, I mean for popular media). But I also think of another reason. It was her marriage to Turreau that put her "out of the game." I have the impression that the horrific aspect of Turreau during the French Revolution is emphasized, but less so during the Napoleonic period (although I don't believe he managed to cause as much damage as in Vendée). It is as if they wanted to conceal as much as possible what Turreau did under Bonaparte and, consequently, Marie-Angélique.
What is frustrating is that Turreau was never punished for what he did, had a good end of life in a way, but I have the impression that his wife and children (especially Alexandrine) paid for his bad reputation by not receiving help (or at least not much) where some families who worked for Napoleon were able to benefit from better aid. For my part, I think it was when he was alive that he should have been held accountable, not his children, who were just as much victims of their father.
Sources:
Thomas Fleming
Jstore
Henry Adams
Michel Salamin
Auguste Philippe Herlaut
Preux
Rivaz
Raymonde Monnier
For the post I write on Ronsin it’s here : https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/769225405243752448/the-life-of-charles-philippe-ronsin-from?source=share
Many thanks to @aedislumen. Without her help, I wouldn’t have been able to gather so much information. It’s thanks to her that I found out where I could read the biography of Ronsin by Hérlaut.
The Most Prominent Revolutionary Women Among the "Hebertists":
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.
Jeanne Lallemand: Mother of Jean-Nicolas Pache, who was also imprisoned for 100 days during the same period as her granddaughter Sylvie. According to Xavier Audouin, she applauded her son’s and her granddaughter’s husband’s desires to serve their country.
The difference in treatment between the Indulgents and the Cordeliers or Hébertistes
I have an opinion that will seem unpopular, no worries I am open to any criticism or to being corrected in the event of an error so do not hesitate to correct me. I have much more sympathy for the Hébertist faction, the exaggerators or the Cordeliers than that of Danton's Indulgents. Indeed if we exclude the Hebert case who is an indefensible man, mediocre in my eyes (I don't think I need to explain why) this is not the case for so many others. I mean Ronsin was a competent and honest administrator.
Despite his mysoginism (horribly reprehensible, just look at the speech he gave concerning the execution of Gouges and Manon Roland) Chaumette could be as competent as procureur syndicale de Paris and had also generous ideas (such as banning whipping in schools, equalization of funeral rites for all, protective measures for the elderly and hospitalized).
One of the most impressive cases is Momoro. Even the historian Mathiez, who nevertheless has little sympathy for the revolutionaries who were against the Committee of Public Safety in the spring of 1794, had practically nothing but praise for Momoro. He voluntarily lived in poverty and when he was tried he said he had given everything for the revolution. It was true in my eyes.
Of course I understand in a certain way the repression exercised by the Committee of Public Safety (more precisely the Convention since an arrest cannot be made without its agreement, it is not a dictatorship either) when Cordeliers wanted to launch a new insurrection against the Convention ( like Momoro for example). The fact of wanting to persecute the priests did not help, not to mention the fact that they wanted stronger repression of the enemies at the risk of making the Revolution even harsher. But when we analyze, I can understand where come frome their anger. Their hatred about religion was due to the fact that not long ago, a lot of religious fanatics infantilized the people, constantly made prohibitions against them (we must NEVER accept infantilization or loss of free will for religious reasons) and atrocious repressions without counting the their wealth that they monopolized (in terms of absurd repression there is nothing but to see the Calas affair, or that of the case of Chevalier de la Barre etc…), even if there were a lot of priest and believers weren't like that . Although the Cordeliers were wrong to respond to religious intolerance by intolerance, I can agree. The same goes for the Terror. At that time France was threatened by enemies from within and without and quite a few of their enemies carried out atrocious tortures (although rotten people like Fouché, Carrier, were not to be outdone in atrocities to the point that the Committee of Public Safety recalled them immediately). Prices were increasing because of the war, so without excusing them once again I can understand their minds when they demanded ever greater repression of the Terror (even if once again it was a serious error ,a mistake and even a fault).
Let's compare to the indulgent (or Dantonists) who are caught up in financial scandals (according to for a lot of historians like Jean Marc Schiappa). Danton moved only because of the financial scandals which were beginning to erupt and did not dare to attack head-on in this period of factional clashes, he let his friends do so. Moreover, according to certain historians like Decaux if I am not mistaken, he only came back against the Hebertists because they attacked them (and they did not only have them as enemies). He is not a clean character. Let's not talk about Fabre d'Eglantine. For Desmoulins I have an unpopular opinion of him. I find him very overrated and no matter how much I tried to appreciate his historical figure (by reading the very good biography of Leuwers or the book by Joseph Andras) I cannot. I don't think that despite the fact that he is very cultured, a man who rightly think that women must have the right of vote and even a republican before his time, he is not capable of assuming an important position unlike Saint Just or Ronsin who he made fun of. And worst of all I find him hypocritical, he who demanded clemency applauded the execution of the Hebertists following a parody of justice (yes I like the Montagnards of this period but this kind of thing should never be tolerated) . He didn't say anything when the wives of Momoro and Hebert were arrested which was very serious (afterwards I don't know well if they were arrested at the same time as Lucile Desmoulins), but he didn't realize that it was going well back in his face.
The Dantonists were irresponsible in my eyes. I completely agree that it was necessary to examine each prisoner on a case-by-case basis because there were surely a large number who had nothing to do there by creating as many commissions as possible as quickly as possible and getting down to business. job right away because prison is a horrible place, even more so for innocent people. But releasing everyone without distinction immediately would have been dangerous because there were also dangerous counter-revolutionaries or spies. I mean have they forgotten that the fall of Toulon to the English was due to betrayal? The betrayal of Dumouriez, the assassinations of some deputies, etc…
Where did this idea of making peace with foreign armies still occupying France come from when the French army was beginning to be victorious? Opposing a war of conquest I completely agree, but allowing one's own territory to be annexed is something else.
And how dangerous would it be to leave corrupt people like Danton in power. Sooner or later, he could perhaps have given in to blackmail in view of the evidence of corruption that contemporaries have today, which would have been very dangerous for France.
As a result, I never understood why the “good” indulgent ones were portrayed against the “bad” Cordeliers and Hébertists.
Whatever happens for all these factions, no matter my great admiration for revolutionaries like Le Bas, Saint Just, Couthon, the fact that I am sorry like many people that Robespierre is demonized, the fact that they allowed a parody of justice against these factions is an unforgivable fault and to have allowed the execution of Marie Françoise Goupil and Lucile Desmoulins among others to consolidate this parody of justice is unacceptable. Even if I understand their states of mind because they could not afford to lose especially in this period against these different factions and contrary to what the Thermidorians put forward, the majority of the Convention was just as guilty as them, there is no excuse for this kind of behavior.
Did Saint Just realize this when he said that the Revolution was frozen (even he spoke more about the consequences of this repression and that the revolution is weakened on this point) ? It would later fall on them and Elisabeth Le Bas was threatened with being guillotined for having been Le Bas' wife (some wanted to force her into a marriage with one of the Termidorians). If they had not allowed the fate of Goupil or Lucile Desmoulins earlier perhaps it would have been more difficult for the Thermidorians to threaten her.
For more information in the form of a movie , I invite you to see" Saint Just ou la Force des Choses" and " la Camera explore le temps Danton, la terreur et la vertue" in English sub. These are good movies about this period.