NATIONAL ASSEMBLY! JULY, 1791

! PAGE 1

From the EditorI would just like to

thank all the factions for

coming together in this

newspaper.

I have attempted to

mingle different opinions

in this newspaper as to

show a non-bias toward

any one faction.

We are truly, a single

united France.

-Citoyen White

France UnisEnjoy! A Crosswordby Ma#ory Hood

ACROSS4 A popular scholar who published “The People’s Friend”6 A time period where people considered a national security threat were beheaded9 King that lost his power after the Fall of the Bastille10 Prison that was mobbed by the third estateDOWN1 A general assembly consisting of equal amounts of citizens from the three estates

2 Location where the new constitution was drafted3 A military and political leader who led battles during the French Revolution5 Grand palace built for Louis XIV south of Paris7 Listed the freedoms and rights of the citizens of France8 Political club that supported the execution of Louis XVI

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY! JULY, 1791

! PAGE 2

ONE LAST ATTEMPT TO KEEP THE NOBILITY

Good morning, again. I spoke before you last time about revoking the no nobility clause and the supporting clauses in out Constitution. Although they were not revoked, the Constitution has not yet been ratified and I shall continue to try to persuade everyone that nobility does indeed belong in our society. I shall continue on with hopes of being listened to without being looked upon as greedy and selfish, but rather a supportive citizen of France.

First of all, nobility apart, I would like to address the issue of the National Guard. Last meeting we discussion the election of officers by merit, but what we didn’t’ mention was who was allowed in the National Guard in the first place. I think we should limit membership in the National Guard to only those who

identify as ‘active citizens,’ or only those who own property and thus must pay taxes. “France needs an army in order to pacify and coerce its people. Everything depends upon the army in such a government as [ours]…You must rule by an army; and you have infused into that army by which you rule, as well as into the whole body of the nation” (Carnes, 114-115). Our army is more than just an army. It reflects our entire country of France. I just think it would be wise for those who contribute so much to society to have the right to join the National Assembly. It should be a great honor to defend our country’s name, and if we were to allow anyone in, our National Guard would lose its honorable appeal.

Continued on page 3

EDITORIAL BY CLAIRE O’CONNER

With the new, revised Civil Constitution of the Clergy passed in the National Assembly, all of France holds their breath waiting for the clergy to sign the Obligatory Oath, as stated in the Constitution, and to see the reaction of Pope Pius VI. Last year, when negotiations began on the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and the first draft was passed, Pope Pius VI famously chastised our King for signing it, “under the insistence and pressure of the National Assembly, he permitted himself to be carried away to the extent of lending his approval thereto…even more absurd decrees, such as those issued on 27 November 1790.” In addition, he castigated the Obligatory Oath

saying that it “is to be regarded as perjured and sacrilegious…and that all committing the act are to be regarded as schismatic, and as worthless, futile, and subject to greater censure…” I guess willingness to compromise isn’t one of the qualities that led to his election. He even went so far as to declare that “all cardinals of the Holy Roman Church,…archbishops, bishops, etc., who have taken the civil oath as prescribed by the National Assembly, shall be suspended from the tenure of any office whatsoever and are liable to the charge of irregularity if they exercise such office, unless within forty days, dating from today, they have retracted said oath.” The

National Assembly has shown its willingness to compromise in revising the oath. However, it remains to be seen which clergy members will follow through and sign the new oath as promised. But, they ought to keep in mind that refusing to sign it will result in their being considered enemies of the state. And most importantly, the country waits to hear the reaction of the Pope and see if he, like the National Assembly, can accept compromise. After all, the new oath does not require that all oaths to the Pope are forsaken. Stay tuned my fellow citizens; this is one you will not want to miss.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY! JULY, 1791

! PAGE 3

ONE LAST ATTEMPT TO KEEP THE NOBILITY

Secondly, I wish to inform you of the protection of “property” provisions found in our constitution, and wish for these to be retained. Yes, retained, however I think it would be wise for a few adjustments to be made. Currently, these provisions state, “ The constitution guarantees the inviolability of property of a just and prior indemnity for that of which a legally established public necessity may demand the sacrifice,” and “Property intended for these expenses of worship and for all services of public utility belongs to the nation and is at all times at its disposal” (Carnes, 65). In response to this, Burke claims, “It is not the confiscation of our church property from this example in France that I dread, though I think this would be no trifling evil. The great source of my solicitude is, lest it should ever be considered in England as the policy of a state, to seek a resource in confiscations of any kind; or that any one description of citizens should be brought to regard any of the others as their proper prey. Nations are wading deeper and deeper into an ocean of boundless debt…Revolutions are favorable

to confiscation, and it is impossible to know under what obnoxious names the next confiscations will be authorized” (Burke, 155-156).

Continued on page 7

Throughout my travels, I have seen many different things. It is time for us to ask if we are truly one people, or are we a conglomeration of many. So which is it? The answer determines what form of government is the best for us, the French. If we are a conglomeration, then a democracy or republic modeled after the American form would work the best. For as a conglomeration of many different peoples, we are not able to find common ground between ourselves. But, if we are one people, then democracy would not work, because it would only serve to divide us into factions and corrupt us. Only a truly equal government based upon

the General Will would work. The question still remains, what is France, a congregation of peoples or are we one people? To answer this, all one needs to do is look at the people within the country. In America, there are people from all different countries of Europe mixing together. But here, in France, are there large assortments of people from other countries here? Not in large enough quantities to threaten the French majority. So we are one people, raised in the same culture. Thus as one people, government by and through the General Will would work and in fact be the best for France. You might ask, “If this system of government is

the best, then why hasn’t it been adopted already?” We as a people have been corrupted in our own journey for self-worth and self-appreciation. We have been taught to consider ourselves before our state. That is the reason for all of the inequality and injustice. Rousseau says that we give everything up only to get everything back. If we put the state and the General Will before ourselves, then the state will take care of us and make sure we have everything we need. But to get to that point, we need to shed the mantle of selfishness and focus not on ourselves but on the General Will and the state.

BOOK REVIEW: ROUSSEAU’S THE SOCIAL CONTRACTRousseau’s dissertation on government and the people is something that all good revolutionaries

must read if they haven’t already. Rousseau’s masterpiece, published just thirty short years ago, has already made a splash in the political world of France, and outlines the most magnificent form of government one could ever imagine. Go pick it up at your local bookstore!

THOUGHTS ON FRANCE BY GEOFF JACKSON

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY! JULY, 1791

! PAGE 4

BLOODby Mikeala EstepThis room was blood soaked

when we left it. The staff has done an. Admirable job in removing the stains, but the smell. I fear this smell may haunt my dreams.  I was in a war. I remember what it was like when streets are lined with bodies, when entire villages were wiped out by opposing armies, and I vowed to do all I could to prevent Our France fr...om experiencing that fate. I stand before you on the cusp of failure.

 You see, I succumbed to one

of the most perilous of sins, and for that, I beg your forgiveness. I was so full of pride: pride for our people, pride for our homeland. Our citizens, I believed, would understand that the debates of this constitution were necessary for their own good, for the good of all of France. They would never bow to a mob mentality that swept a crowd of good citizens away and left in it’s place a pack of snarling dogs. We Frenchman, I believed, were beyond that. Were more civilized then that. It was for that reason, and that reason alone that I did not use force to put down the riot in it’s infancy, because of a mistaken belief in the intelligence and reason of the members of the crowd.

 I am ashamed to admit I was

wrong. The faces of the 50 delegates that died because I was so foolishly confident in our people haunt me when I close my eyes.

 

It rips at my heart that merely a few minutes before I was considering allowing these people not only into this assembly, but into the National Guard. I actually contemplated allowing those who would commit such crimes into a body of men sworn to prevent them. Even with the vicious insults directed at me by Citizen Arjun, I considered it. I had likened the vocal battery of the crowd to a spoiled child’s tantrum, and some of you assured me that like a child, such desperate bids for attention would cease if they were given a voice they were sure could be heard. But do we want the prevalent voice of the crowd now to have a voice in our government.

 If you need further proof of

the disparity in the crowds declarations and their actions, the red ribbons that were passed around by the crowd members before the assembly as a declaration of support of the people were undermined by the very citizens they had come from. Red for growth, they claimed. Red for the citizen spirit, they lied.

 Red for blood. Red for anger,

red for vengeance-but not red for France. No, those ribbons were in no way intended to nurture our country’s new growth, and in every way a trick-intended to declare support for violence against French citizens. Unable to rationalize such an act, they resorted to lies to gain the show of support they needed.

 I still, perhaps naively, cling to

the idea that our citizens, at their

base are good and just. But it has become just as apparent to me that those who are currently leading the crowd are not. I will not stand for such depraved individuals to ruin France. They have displayed a moral judgement that is twisted somehow. They have, even when given the opportunity to act with honor, shown a lack of a moral code that shocked me. Until such leaders are no longer in positions of power in the crowd, until such mob violence ceases and I can be assured that those speaking the will of the French people will and have acted with honor and dignity, I will oppose their appointment into the assembly and the Guard.

 Fifty men dead. This tells me

all I need to know when considering their petition to allow them into our bodies of government and arms. This shows a moral deprivation that I believe would be caustic in our government. It speaks to an environment of law so overshadowed by our missing members that we may not be able to reach the types of compromises necessary for the good of France. Factionalism could be the downfall of our government. Deadlock could stagnate us. If lines of battle are drawn in this Assembly by any group seeking power of the others, it could ruin all we have accomplished. Therefore it is for the good of all France that I suggest we continue in our current form of Assembly, without the involvement of members of the crowd.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY! JULY, 1791

! PAGE 5

THE VITALITY OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

by Kalyan Venkatraj Citizens of France,     

! Growing up in our grand state, I have come to the express conclusion that we are a diverse people filled with passion for our country. Recent events in our history qualify this observation, and it is important to keep this patriotic fervor alive to avoid future injustices in France. This is why I have chosen to address the assembly on the topic of our important property laws. In the past, I have publically voiced my support for the initiatives proposed by the masses and the Jacobins, however, I believe that these factions have long been too radical in their ideologies concerning property. I like many others “steadfastly believe in the Constitution of 1791, but I am inclined to think that Rousseau went too far” (Feuillant 2). As a result, the Feuillant club seeks to formulate more rational and reasonable policies that preserve the idea of property in France, which lies in contrast to the Revolutionaries who would seize noble and clerical property at a whim. I will first justify the inheritance of property and then expose why the French Revolutionaries err in confiscating it from noblemen and the Church.

The generational transmission of property is quickly becoming one of the most contested items for debate in the National Assembly. In order to present a robust argument in favor of strong property rights, one must analyze Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract. When Rousseau speaks of property he means that which is obtained legally thereby purporting legitimate claims to ones holdings (Rousseau 149). This definition functions in a medium known as a social contract where individual rights are combined. Even though individual rights are eliminated, Rousseau firmly asserts, “a strong advantage is created since one now stands in better defense against all forces” (Rousseau 168). The code of “the first occupant” is thus introduced in our civil society. For this state of occupancy to exist, three rules must be in place. There can be no prior inhabitation, ownership must be based on need not greed whereby no individual takes more land than they can work, and the individual must actually work the land they claim (Rousseau 168). Though Rousseau may have good intentions with his version of property laws, his works have been manipulated by the Revolutionaries to suit their purpose and justify mayhem. Rousseau does not a set up a legal framework to organize his views and, as a result, utter disorganization has erupted in concern with property laws in France.

Even the National Assembly has a lack of regard for property laws. Recently, legislation

passed which decreed that the Church give up ninety percent of their lands. Half of this land will be going to wealthy auctioneers, which completely contradicts Rousseau’s opinions on ownership based on need, not greed. What is more appalling is how we as an Assembly declared the clergy “legally entitled to their property, recognizing the rights of those persecuted citizens in the very act in which they were grossly violated” (Burke 104). Nothing can lead more to the true spirit of the Assembly, “which sits for public confiscation, with its new equity and its new morality, than an attention to their proceeding with regard to this debt of the clergy” (Burke 104). The confiscation of church land shows a strong example of Rousseau’s flawed conception of property. Rousseau is too flexible in his views on property, and as a result, these views are co-opted by special interests that do not serve the well being of France.

Rather, we must understand that the confiscation of property is unjust. Our organized transmitting of property through inheritance and sales avoids conflicts. Furthermore, preserving our property system upholds individual rights rather than greedy collectivism. One of my favorite philosophers on property is a young man by the name of John Locke. The American responds to fiery Jacobins by firmly asserting, “man owns in the state of nature, only his body, and the labor his body produces” (Locke 15). Locke rightfully believes that “all land that a man can take and improve with his labor belongs to him alone” (Locke 17). Even though the aristocracy has committed atrocious crimes, their land serves as outlets for “non-laborers to labor to sustain their lives” (Locke 17). Therefore, most land owned by the clergy and nobility serves a purpose and provides spaces for labor. Using Locke’s logic, this property should remain in the hands of the owner. The reservation of individual rights in terms of property law improves the overall happiness and welfare of the state. Locke qualifies this belief by pointing out how “at the time when large pieces of American land were un-owned, the quality of life was far more underdeveloped than that of Britain, where property was largely owned by individuals” (Locke 18). That being said, some property must be wrested away from those who seek to spoil or waste the land. Property should serve as important political, social, and economic conduits for the nation to function efficiently. However, “this seizure of property, it seems, is a judgment in law and not a confiscation” (Burke 103). We must preserve our legal institutions, not wantonly confiscate people’s property, or ravage land simply because one lives in poverty. There are other legal pathways to solve the systemic and structural violence imbued corrupt clergy and nobility. on those living in property. Families and inheritors,

who worked hard to accumulate wealth, own most of the properties that are currently being confiscated by rioting Revolutionaries. How are we going to encourage innovation and hard work, when we “permit the depriving of just emoluments” (Burke 103)? Must we not respect the rights of individuals and clerics in our new state? Or will we succumb to our baser desires, by justifying the confiscation of property based on political interests? Ask yourself these questions before voting on legislation that defiles our property laws.

We, as Frenchman, are at an important crossroads for our newly crafted state. Utter mayhem is a very real possibility if we do not make the tough decisions that will define a country with a strong sense of justice. Currently, we must alleviate the problems of the It is also true, that the Assembly must work to close the vast income gap between the wealthy and the peasantry. However, in the process of solving these issues, we must not lose our pride for justice and individual rights. The right to safely own property is a key pillar in support of both individualism and fairness. The Feuillants will, by any means necessary, preserve the individual’s right to own property without risk of confiscation. We hope your factions will put aside partisan interests and stand in support of peace, instead of chaos.

 

 

      Works Cited

Macaulay, Catharine. On Burke's Reflections on the French Revolution, 1790. Poole: Woodstock, 1997. Print.

Carnes, Mark C, and Gary Kates. Rousseau, Burke, and Revolution in France, 1791. New York: Pearson Education, Inc, 2005. N. Print. Reacting to the Past.

Feuillant Role Sheet

Kelly, Paul. Locke's 'Second Treatise of Government' London [u.a.: Continuum, 2007. Print.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, Susan Dunn, and Gita May. The Social Contract And, The First and Second Discourses. New Haven: Yale UP, 2002. Print.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY! JULY, 1791

! PAGE 6

MATTERS CONCERNING THE CONSTITUTION

by Lauren PetersCitizens of France, A time of serious change is upon us.

There is no going back to the ancien régime of our past days. We must move forward as a united people. With the vastly differing views of the Jacobins versus the clergy and nobility, the only way to bring about a peaceful end to this revolution is to compromise.

As discussed in our last meeting of the National Assembly, many compromises regarding the Civil Constitution of the Clergy need to be made if we are to move forward with the ratification of the constitution. We must come to an agreement quickly as the violence of the mob is no longer promoting the original cause of the revolution but causing harm and discord in France.  “Bodies dangling from lampposts and heads jammed upon pikes” are dire consequences of the instability of the Crowd. The negligence of the monarchy to the needs of the lower classes has led to, “huge crowds of women at the central markets in the Faubourg Saint-Antoine shouting for bread” (Carnes 15). This disunity and hostility amongst France must be conquered.

  The Constitution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man are by no means perfect. The Constitution creates a constitutional monarchy in which the King is head of the executive branch, yet effectively shares power with the legislature. Rousseau describes monarchy as, “the will of the people, the will of the Prince, the public force of the State, and the particular force of the government, all obey the same motive power; all parts of the machine are in the same hand, everything moves toward the same end” (Rousseau 204).  It is this balance between powers that is going to save France.   We must find a middle compromise in which there is considerable flexibility and stability, as man is not made to fit into abstract philosophical principles. We must agree to these compromises before France destroys itself in civil war (Feuillant 4).

  I, Bishop Laurent Pierre, stand before you today, having myself taken the

Obligatory Oath. The Holy Scripture states in Romans 13:1-2, “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves”. A new provision that was proposed in our last meeting of the National Assembly, states that the clergy agree to take the oath, swearing allegiance to the French state, without forsaking their allegiance to the Pope or risk being labeled enemies of the state and being treated as such. This lies in accord with the Holy Scriptures in that we are obeying God by not forsaking Him or His Church while obeying the Law of the land. The Obligatory Oath calls us, “to be faithful to the nation, to the law and to the king, and to maintain with all their power the constitution decreed by the National Assembly and accepted by the king” (Carnes 63). Our friend Mirabeau, though recently deceased, may he rest in peace, warned the National Assembly that the Catholic clergy are spearheading opposition to the revolution, “working in secret cabals and in concert with the pope” (Carnes 23). I urge you to accept this new revision to the Obligatory Oath as it allows you to be faithful both to God and to France.

  In the spirit of compromise, we last talked about making many amendments to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy in order that the Decree on Church Lands not be revoked. The concessions to be made regarding the Civil Constitution of the Clergy include, the clergy will not be made employees of the new French Republic thus will still be appointed by the church hierarchy and papal confirmation. The bishops must swear allegiance to the new government and Constitution but may in return, retain allegiance to the Pope and Catholic Church. There will be a complete separation of Church and state, with neither meddling in the others affairs, unless the Church becomes political, and then the state will be allowed to step in. The Catholic Church must agree to support the new Constitution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Lastly as stated above, Church officials must take

the Obligatory Oath declaring loyalty to France without having to renounce loyalty to the Catholic Church.

   In return for all of these compromises made to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, we ask that the Decree on Church lands continue to be put into action. This decree states that the Church agrees to surrender 90% of its lands. Half of the lands will be sold at an auction to finance the new government while the other half of the land will remain in possession of the state for the purpose of growing food for the poor and hungry. This half of land will be sold at a later date for a subsidized price to those of lower income, when the government has stabilized. The government of France now relies upon the income from the sale of Church lands. This money allows for the pay of the National Guard and army, and ensures the supply of grain for the cities. Without this income, France would no longer be able to function economically and in turn, not function at all.

 I move that we pass these compromises to the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, the Decree on Church Lands, and the Obligatory Oath. Our government is in dire need of balance and we must take the necessary steps forward to approve the Constitution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Rousseau states, “Men always desire their own good, but do not always discern it; the people are never corrupted, though often deceived, and it is only when that they seem to will what is evil” (Rousseau 172). Do not let your passions control your mindset and thus give way to actions of evil. We must regain stability in France before our nation destroys itself in civil war.

Carnes, Mark C, and Gary Kates. Rousseau, Burke, and Revolution in France, 1791.

     New York: Pearson Education, Inc, 2005. N. Print. Reacting to the Past.

Feuillant Role SheetRousseau, Jean-Jaques. The Social

Contract. The Social Contract and the First and Second Discourses. Ed. Susan Dunn. Binghamton, New York: Vail-Ballou

Press, 2002. N. Print. Rethinking the Western Tradition.

NATIONAL ASSEMBLY! JULY, 1791

! PAGE 7

ONE LAST ATTEMPT TO KEEP THE NOBILITY

by Maddie Saragusa

Clearly, Burke is a huge supporter of protection of private property. He thinks those who own property have a right to own that property; the property is theirs to keep and not for the government’s taking. Naturally, as a property owning citizen, it worries me that it’s possible that one day my property will be unjustly taken away. However, I am a man of understanding, and wish to compromise. As these provisions stand now, they say that property may be taken away due to “public necessity” and “religious sacrifice.” These are reasons, nonetheless, to take away property, but I feel they are not strong enough and are a bit too vague. I will do everything I can to keep my property, for which I believe is rightfully mine. However, if there is indeed a great need, not desire, but need, I would be willing to sell my land, or allow people to use it for a small period of time. Therefore, I propose we add a clause to these provision saying the private lands can be sold if there is a public necessity, or borrowed for a short period of time if need b e.

And lastly, although many of you will not have any interest in this, especially seeing as the no nobility clauses have already been retained, I wish to try yet again to keep the nobility around the revoke the Fourth of August Decree that eliminates nobility. I don’t know what else to say to try to convince you of my belonging. I’ll repeat once again that we noblemen are statesmen, scientists, musicians, and artists, and we find joy in knowledge, wisdom, and order, and try to promote these virtues to others in order to create stability and peace. We noblemen [do] not mistreat the peasant class. “Instances of ill-treatment of the humble part of the community [are] rare; and as to attacks made upon the property or the personal liberty of the commons, I

have never heard of any whatsoever” (Carnes 106). Agreements with the farmers of their land were not oppressive and our proportions in rent are fair. “All this violent cry against the nobility I take to be a mere work of art. The strong struggle in every individual to preserve possession of what he has found to belong to him and to distinguish him is one of the securities against injustice and despotism implanted in our nature.

I believe that the noblesse forms part of the “mixed system of opinion and sentiment” that is the foundation of “chivalry” and “principle” (Carnes, 94). Without the differing layers of generations and ranks, we would lose “all the pleasing illusions which made power gentle and obedience liberal, which harmonized the different shades of life, and which, by a bland assimilation, incorporated into politics the sentiments which beautify and soften private society” (Carnes, 94). We need these ranks to keep order and peace in France. “When ancient opinions and rules of life are taken away, the loss cannot possibly be estimated” (Carnes 94).

I’m fed up with having to try to convince everyone that I belong here. The fact of the matter is I’m here. The nobility is part of this National Assembly, part of France, and we deserve to be here. I took the Tennis Court Oath, I pledged my allegiance to the National Assembly, what else must I do to get you to listen to my own thoughts and opinions without you first setting up a mental barrier in opposition towards me simply because I’m nobility? “Your noblesse did not deserve punishment; but to degrade is to punish” (Carnes, 108). Please contemplate my arguments against your delusions.