Demonstration of 20 June 1792

The Demonstration of 20 June 1792

Le Peuple pénètre dans le Château des Tuileries,
Jan Bulthuis, 1800, Musée de la Révolution française.

Date	20 June 1792
Location	Paris, France

The Demonstration of 20 June 1792 (French: Journée du 20 juin 1792) was the last bloodless attempt made by the revolutionaries of Paris to persuade King Louis XVI of France to abandon his current policy and adopt a more compliant role in the escalating frenzy of the French Revolution. The demonstrators' stated aims were to persuade the king to enforce the Legislative Assembly's rulings, defend France against foreign invasion, and conform to the French Constitution of 1791. In particular, the demonstrators hoped that the king would withdraw his veto and recall the Girondin ministers.

The Demonstration was the last phase of the unsuccessful attempt to establish a constitutional monarchy in France. After the Insurrection of 10 August 1792, the monarchy was deposed. Soon after, Louis XVI was beheaded by guillotine.

YouTube Encyclopedic

1/5
Views:
4 941 494
24 160
63 555
292 063
4 343

Transcription

Hi, my name is John Green, this is Crash Course World History and today we’re going to talk about The French Revolution. Admittedly, this wasn’t the French flag until 1794, but we just felt like he looked good in stripes. [vertical = slimming] As does this guy. Huh? So, while the American Revolution is considered a pretty good thing, the French Revolution is often seen as a bloody, anarchic mess—which— Mr. Green, Mr. Green! I bet, like always, it’s way more complicated than that. Actually no. It was pretty terrible. Also, like a lot of revolutions, in the end it exchanged an authoritarian regime for an authoritarian regime. But even if the revolution was a mess, its ideas changed human history— far more, I will argue, than the American Revolution. [Intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] [intro music] Right, so France in the 18th century was a rich and populous country, but it had a systemic problem collecting taxes because of the way its society was structured. They had a system with kings and nobles we now call the ancien regime. Thank you, three years of high school French. [and Meredith the Interness] And for most French people, it sucked, [historical term] because the people with the money— the nobles and the clergy— never paid taxes. So by 1789, France was deeply in debt thanks to their funding the American Revolution— thank you, France, [also for Goddard and The Coneheads] we will get you back in World Wars I and II. And King Louis XVI was spending half of his national budget to service the federal debt. Louis tried to reform this system under various finance ministers. He even called for democracy on a local level, but all attempts to fix it failed and soon France basically declared bankruptcy. This nicely coincided with hailstorms that ruined a year’s harvest, [ah, hail] thereby raising food prices and causing widespread hunger, which really made the people of France angry, because they love to eat. Meanwhile, the King certainly did not look broke, as evidenced by his well-fed physique and fancy footwear. He and his wife Marie Antoinette also got to live in the very nice Palace at Versailles thanks to God’s mandate, but Enlightenment thinkers like Kant were challenging the whole idea of religion, writing things like: “The main point of enlightenment is of man’s release from his self-caused immaturity, primarily in matters of religion.” [while smacking folks in face w/ glove] So basically the peasants were hungry, the intellectuals were beginning to wonder whether God could or should save the King, and the nobility were dithering about, eating fois gras and songbirds, [I'd rather eat cake, personally] failing to make meaningful financial reform. In response to the crisis, Louis XVI called a meeting of the Estates General, the closest thing that France had to a national parliament, which hadn’t met since 1614. The Estates General was like a super parliament made up of representatives from the First Estate, the nobles, the Second Estate, the clergy, and the Third Estate, everyone else. The Third Estate showed up with about 600 representatives, the First and Second Estates both had about 300, and after several votes, everything was deadlocked, and then the Third Estate was like, “You know what? Forget you guys. [expletive deleted] We’re gonna leave and we’re gonna become our own National Assembly.” This did not please King Louis XVI. [everything can't be an eclair, Lou] So when the new National Assembly left the room for a break, he locked the doors, and he was like, "Sorry, guys, you can't go in there. And if you can't assemble, how you gonna be a national assembly?" […and with that, mischief managed!] Shockingly, the Third Estate representatives were able to find a different room in France, [D'oh!] this time an indoor tennis court where they swore the famous Tennis Court Oath. [Like McEnroe? You can't be serious..] And they agreed not to give up until a French constitution was established. So then Louis XVI responded by sending troops to Paris primarily to quell uprisings over food shortages, but the revolutionaries saw this as a provocation, so they responded by seizing the Bastille Prison on July 14th, which, coincidentally, is also Bastille Day. The Bastille was stormed ostensibly to free prisoners— although there were only seven in jail at the time— but mostly to get guns. But the really radical move in the National Assembly came on August 4, when they abolished most of the ancien regime. -- feudal rights, tithes, privileges for nobles, unequal taxation, they were all abolished -- in the name of writing a new constitution. And then, on August 26th, the National Assembly proclaimed the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen, which laid out a system of rights that applied to every person, and made those rights integral to the new constitution. That’s quite different from the American bill of rights, which was, like, begrudgingly tacked on at the end and only applied to non-slaves. The DoRoMaC, as I called it in high school, declared that everyone had the right to liberty, property, and security— rights that the French Revolution would do an exceptionally poor job of protecting, but as noted last week, the same can be argued for many other supposedly more successful revolutions. Okay, let’s go to the Thought Bubble. Meanwhile, back at Versailles, Louis XVI was still King of France, and it was looking like France might be a constitutional monarchy. Which might've meant that the royal family could hang on to their awesome house, but then, in October of 1789, a rumor started that Marie Antoinette was hoarding grain somewhere inside the palace. And in what became known as the Women's March, a bunch of armed peasant women stormed the palace and demanded that Louis and Marie Antoinette move from Versailles to Paris. Which they did, because everyone is afraid of armed peasant women. ["hell hath no rath" and all] And this is a nice reminder that to many people at the time, the French Revolution was not primarily about fancy Enlightenment ideas; it was mostly about lack of food and a political system that made economic contractions hardest on the poor. Now, a good argument can be made that this first phase of the revolution wasn’t all that revolutionary. The National Assembly wanted to create a constitutional monarchy; they believed that the king was necessary for a functioning state and they were mainly concerned that the voters and office holders be men of property. Only the most radical wing, the Jacobins, called for the creation of a republic. But things were about to get much more revolutionary— and also worse for France. First, the Jacobins had a huge petition drive that got a bit unruly, which led troops controlled not by the King but by the national assembly to fire on the crowd, killing 50 people. And that meant that the National Assembly, which had been the revolutionary voice of the people, had killed people in an attempt to reign in revolutionary fervor. You see this a lot throughout history during revolutions. What looked like radical hope and change suddenly becomes "The Man" as increasingly radical ideas are embraced. Thanks, Thought Bubble. Meanwhile, France’s monarchical neighbors were getting a little nervous about all this republic business, especially Leopold II, who in addition to being the not holy not roman and not imperial holy roman emperor, was Marie Antoinette’s brother. I should note, by the way, that at this point, the Holy Roman Empire was basically just Austria. Also, like a lot of monarchs, Leopold II liked the idea of monarchies, and he wanted to keep his job as a person who gets to stand around wearing a dress, pointing at nothing, owning winged lion-monkeys made out of gold. [must've been a real partier, that one] And who can blame him? So he and King William Frederick II of Prussia together issued the Declaration of Pilnitz, which promised to restore the French monarchy. At this point, Louis and the National Assembly developed a plan: Let’s invade Austria. [always a solid plan?] The idea was to plunder Austria’s wealth and maybe steal some Austrian grain to shore up French food supplies, and also, you know, spread revolutionary zeal. But what actually happened is that Prussia joined Austria in fighting the French. And then Louis encouraged the Prussians, which made him look like an enemy of the revolution, which, of course, he was. And as a result, the Assembly voted to suspend the monarchy, have new elections in which everyone could vote (as long as they were men), and create a new republican constitution. Soon, this Convention decided to have a trial for Louis XVI, who was found guilty and, by one vote, sentenced to die via guillotine. Which made it difficult for Austria and Prussia to restore him to the throne. Oh, it’s time for the open letter? [musical chairs undefeated champ rolls] An Open Letter to the Guillotine. But first, let’s see what’s in the secret compartment today. Oh, there’s nothing. Oh my gosh, Stan! Jeez. That’s not funny! [That's what Anne Boleyn said…] Dear Guillotine, I can think of no better example of Enlightenment thinking run amok. Dr. Joseph Guillotine, the inventor of the guillotine, envisioned it as an egalitarian way of dying. They said the guillotine was humane and it also made no distinction between rich or poor, noble or peasant. It killed equally. You were also celebrated for taking the torture out of execution. But I will remind you, you did not take the dying out of execution. [or have a self-cleaning function] Unfortunately for you, France hasn’t executed anyone since 1977. But you’ll be happy to know that the last legal execution in France was via guillotine. Plus, you’ve always got a future in horror movies. Best wishes, John Green The death of Louis XVI marks the beginning of The Terror, the best known or at least the most sensational phase of the revolution. I mean, if you can kill the king, you can kill pretty much anyone, which is what the government did under the leadership of the Committee of Public Safety (Motto: We suck at protecting public safety) led by Maximilien Robespierre. The terror saw the guillotining of 16,000 enemies of the revolution including Marie “I never actually said Let them eat cake” Antoinette and Maximilien Robespierre himself, who was guillotined in the month of Thermidor in the year Two. Oh, right. So while France was broke and fighting in like nine wars, the Committee of Public Safety changed the measurements of time because, you know, the traditional measurements are so irrational and religion-y. So they renamed all the months and decided that every day would have 10 hours and each hour 100 minutes. And then, after the Terror, the revolution pulled back a bit and another new constitution was put into place, this one giving a lot more power to wealthy people. At this point, France was still at war with Austria and Britain, wars that France ended up winning, largely [lol] thanks to a little corporal named Napoleon Bonaparte. The war was backdrop to a bunch of coups and counter coups that I won’t get into right now because they were very complicated, but the last coup that we’ll talk about, in 1799, established Napoleon Bonaparte as the First Consul of France. And it granted him almost unlimited executive power under yet another constitution. By which he presumably meant that France’s government had gone all the way from here to here to here. As with the American revolution, it’s easy to conclude that France’s revolution wasn’t all that revolutionary. I mean, Napoleon was basically an emperor and, in some ways, he was even more of an absolute monarch than Louis XVI had been. Gradually the nobles came back to France, although they had mostly lost their special privileges. The Catholic Church returned, too, although much weaker because it had lost land and the ability to collect tithes. And when Napoleon himself fell, France restored the monarchy, and except for a four-year period, between 1815 and 1870, France had a king who was either a Bourbon or a Bonaparte. Now, these were no longer absolute monarchs who claimed that their right to rule came from God; they were constitutional monarchs of the kind that the revolutionaries of 1789 had originally envisioned. But the fact remains that France had a king again, and a nobility, and an established religion and it was definitely not a democracy or a republic. And perhaps this is why the French Revolution is so controversial and open to interpretation. Some argue the revolution succeeded in spreading enlightenment ideals even if it didn’t bring democracy to France. Others argue that the real legacy of the Revolution wasn’t the enhancement of liberty, but of state power. Regardless, I’d argue that the French Revolution was ultimately far more revolutionary than its American counterpart. I mean, in some ways, America never had an aristocracy, but in other ways it continued to have one— the French enlightenment thinker, Diderot, felt that Americans should “fear a too unequal division of wealth resulting in a small number of opulent citizens and a multitude of citizens living in misery.” And the American Revolution did nothing to change that polarization of wealth. What made the French Revolution so radical was its insistence on the universality of its ideals. I mean, look at Article 6 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen: “Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes.” Those are radical ideas, that the laws come from citizens, not from kings or gods, and that those laws should apply to everyone equally. That’s a long way from Hammurabi— and in truth, it’s a long way from the slaveholding Thomas Jefferson. In the 1970s, Chinese President Zhou Enlai was asked what the affects of the French Revolution had been. And he said, “It’s too soon to say.” And in a way, it still is. The French Revolution asked new questions about the nature of people’s rights and the derivation of those rights. And we’re still answering those questions and sorting through how our answers should shape society today. —must government be of the people to be for the people? Do our rights derive from nature or from God or from neither? And what are those rights? As William Faulkner said, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller, our script supervisor is Danica Johnson, the show is written by my high school history teacher Raoul Meyer and myself, our graphics team is Thought Bubble, [If you <3 our graphics, Blame Canada!] and we are ably interned by Meredith Danko. [dba: The Interness or MTVCS] Last week’s phrase of the week was "Giant Tea Bag" [seriously, it totally was] If you want to suggest future phrases of the week, or guess at this week's you can do so in comments, where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course, and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget, Metal Ball, I Can Hear You. [slides out like an ace photobomber] [music outro] [music outro]

Background

Under the Girondin ministry, on 20 April 1792, war was declared against Austria.^[1]

This precipitated a major economic crisis. As it struck France's towns, it again set the masses in motion. The crisis was caused by inflation rather than scarcity as past crises, as the currency in circulation had increased by 600 million since October 1792. With continued depreciation of the assignat, the exchange rate fell even more rapidly. By March 1793, French money once worth British £100 would buy only £50 worth of goods in Paris. The flood of paper notes, misused by speculators, aggravated unrest.^[2]

Military setbacks

France declared war on the King of Bohemia and Hungary (Austria) on 20 April 1792. The French troops and their leadership were inadequate from the beginning, leaving the French army in a state of total disarray.^[1] The front-line regiments were insufficiently strong because most men preferred to enlist in volunteer battalions, which were better paid, elected their own officers, and could disband after the campaign.

But despite these attractions, even the volunteer battalions were slow to form. Few volunteers were truly motivated to fight. Frequently, National Guardsmen, not wishing to leave their homes, offered bonuses to convince others to take their place and to muster the necessary quotas. Consequently, it took time for a sufficient quantity of men to enlist. Equipment was furnished by local authorities but arrived slowly, and insufficient arms were available.^[3]

French general Charles François Dumouriez thought the army could get its training in combat. He argued that the enemy had no more than 30,000 men to throw into a campaign, and that foreign troops would be arranged in a cordon from the sea to Lorraine. He proposed to break through this barrier: one column each from Furnes, Lille, Valenciennes, and Givet, totalling more than 50,000 men, would set out on 29 April towards the enemy line.

The other generals, however, were trained for regular war and rejected this plan. Additionally, the officers distrusted their undisciplined troops, while the troops were suspicious of their generals in return. Out of 9,000 officers, at least half had already emigrated, and a few more deserted on the eve of the offensive. In May, several others took three regiments into the enemy camp.

The first military confrontation, the capture of Porrentruy in Switzerland on 28 April, was a small French success. However, in the Battle of Marquain in the Austrian Netherlands on 29 April, Théobald Dillon and Armand Louis de Gontaut ordered a retreat at the sight of the first Austrian troops. Their men cried treason and disbanded; Dillon was murdered at Lille.^[4]

The generals blamed these setbacks on a lack of discipline and on a ministry that tolerated such conditions. In reply, the Gironde ordered Dillon's murderers prosecuted, along with Jean-Paul Marat, who had been exhorting the soldiers to get rid of their generals. A new decree tightened military justice and authorized the generals to issue regulations bearing penalties for infractions. The decree undeniably marked a surrender of legislative power, but to no avail. On 18 May, the leaders of the armies, meeting at Valenciennes, disregarded repeated orders from the ministry and declared an offensive impossible, advising the king to make immediate peace.^[4]

As a result, the generals suspended the offensive. In May, a whole corps, the Royal-Allemand, defected to the enemy. Jean-Baptiste Donatien de Vimeur, comte de Rochambeau, commander of the Armée du Nord, resigned. Assembly member Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette went as far as deliberate treachery. Secretly, he proposed to the Austrians that fighting should be suspended so that he could turn his army against Paris in order to disperse the Jacobins and establish a strong regime.^[5]

Decrees of the Assembly

The Girondins saw no choice but to fall back on the policy of intimidation that had brought them to power. With this goal in mind, the Assembly passed three decrees.

The first decree was directed against the priests who had refused the oath to the civil constitution. Religious disturbances necessitated some decisive action against them, as the state could not be preserved if it continued treating as members of society those who were evidently seeking to dissolve it. One proposal suggested assembling the non-juring priests in the capitals of the departments, but this would have meant creating eighty-three centers of discord, fanaticism, and counter-revolution. The majority of the Assembly concluded the country must be purged. After several days of discussion, fearing the overthrow of the constitution, the Assembly passed the following decree on 27 May 1792: "When twenty active citizens of a canton shall demand that a nonjuring priest leave the realm, the directory of the department must order his deportation if the directory agrees with the petition. If the directory does not agree with the demand of the twenty citizens, it shall determine through committees whether the presence of the priest is a threat to public peace, and if the opinion of the committee supports the demand of the twenty petitioners, the deportation shall be ordered." This decree made the clergy choose between the oath to the constitution and deportation.^[6]

This measure was followed by another directed against the king's bodyguards. The guard had revealed anti-revolutionary sentiments and had uttered threats against the Assembly. The guard was believed to be royalist in its sympathies; wholly devoted to the person of the king; hostile to the government; and wholly lacking in esprit de corps. Assembly member Claude Basire proposed the guard's dissolution, charging its officers with orgies and a plan for carrying away the king. He asked to be allowed to give proof of his accusations the next day. Meanwhile, fellow Assembly member François Chabot declared that he had 182 documents proving the existence of a plot to dissolve the Assembly, set for 27 May. In response, the Assembly decreed that its sessions should be continuous; that the Paris guard should be doubled; and that Paris's mayor, Jérôme Pétion de Villeneuve, should be required to make a daily report on the state of the capital city. Regarding the king's bodyguards, Assembly member Marguerite-Élie Guadet articulated three arguments for the guard's dissolution: first, that it was illegally organized; second, that its chiefs sought to inspire revolt; and third, that the majority favored a counter-revolution. On 29 May 1792, the Assembly decreed that the guard should be dissolved and its commander, the Duc de Brissac, arrested. This decree was executed immediately.^[7]

The third decree provided for a camp of 20,000 fédérés (volunteers from the countryside) to be assembled on 14 June near Paris. French general Joseph Marie Servan de Gerbey made this proposition on 4 June, reportedly without consulting either his colleagues or the king. He argued that the initiative was necessary to establish tranquility in the country. The decree itself stated that its purpose was to improve fraternity between the departments of France. However, discussions in the Assembly indicated that the decree's purpose was to ensure public security. As allies were approaching from without and enemies of the constitution were plotting from within, Paris and the Assembly needed protection.^[8]

Fall of the Girondin Ministry

King Louis refused to sacrifice the non-juring priests or to authorize the establishment of a military camp of fédérés. On 12 June 1792, a letter from Jean-Marie Roland, vicomte de la Platière, Louis' Minister of the Interior, urged the King to yield on these two points, stating that his refusal would provoke the fall of the throne and a massacre of the aristocrats. The next day, the King dismissed Roland, along with Étienne Clavière, his Minister of Finance, and General Servan. On 15 June, General Dumouriez's reception by the Assembly was hostile enough to convince him that he would be arraigned. Since the King insisted on approving only the decree disbanding his guard, Dumouriez resigned and left to rejoin the Army of the North. The Feuillants returned to power in a new ministry.^[9]

On 18 June, Lafayette, judging that the moment had come, called on the Assembly to destroy the democratic movement, declaring: "[The] Constitution of France [is] threatened by seditious groups within the country as well as by its enemies abroad." The King's use of the royal veto, his dismissal of the Girondin ministers, and the formation of a Feuillant ministry all served to show that he and the generals were attempting to enforce the political program advocated by the followers of Lafayette and Alexandre-Théodore-Victor, comte de Lameth. They were seeking to get rid of the Jacobin threat, revise the Constitution so as to reinforce royal authority, and bring the war to an end by making a deal with the enemy.^[10]

Journée du 20 juin

Faced with the threat of a coup from either the royal family or the Feuillants, the Girondins tried to make use of the popular dynamism evident in sections of Paris. The Parisian mayor, Pétion, was sympathetic to their cause and helped the Girondins in these attempts.^[11]

The anniversary of the Tennis Court Oath on 20 June was approaching. Sergent and Panis, the administrators of police sent out by Pétion, reached the Faubourg Saint-Antoine at about 8 o'clock. They urged the people to lay down their weapons, telling them it was illegal to present a petition in arms. The people refused to abandon their arms and said they did not intend to attack the Assembly or the King. They said they had two objectives: to form a procession for the twenty legal petitioners who wished to present a petition to the Assembly and the King, and to celebrate the anniversary of the Tennis Court Oath by planting a maypole in military fashion.^[12]

By five o'clock in the morning on 20 June, groups had formed in the Faubourgs Saint-Antoine and Saint-Marcel, consisting of National Guardsmen, pikemen, gunners with their cannon, men armed with sabers or clubs, women, and children. Other armed petitioners had already appeared before the National Assembly. To prove to the city officials that they had no desire to riot, they invited the officials to join the procession and march along with them.^[13]

The Legislative Assembly met about noon on the 20th, but did not turn its attention first to the threatened uprising. After some other business had been discussed, the president announced that the directory of the department wished to be admitted. The directory had shown great interest in trying to prevent the procession and had been in session since four o'clock in the morning.^[14]

Pierre Louis Roederer, the procureur of the Paris department, brought the news about the mass protest to the Assembly. However, in the meantime, the crowd had reached the doors of the Assembly hall, the Salle du Manège. Their leaders asked permission to enter and present a petition. A violent debate arose between the Right, who were unwilling to admit the armed petitioners, and the Left, who, on the grounds of custom, wished to receive them. Pierre Victurnien Vergniaud argued that the Assembly would violate every principle by admitting armed bands; however, he admitted that it was impossible to deny a request in this case that had been granted in so many others. A majority of the representatives agreed that the petitioners should be allowed in. However, the crowd had already thronged the passages when the Assembly decided to admit them. The deputation was introduced.^[15]

The deputation's spokesman, Sulpice Huguenin, expressed himself in threatening language. He said that the people were agitated; that they were ready to make use of the means stated in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen to resist oppression; that the dissenting members of the assembly, if there were any, wanted to destroy liberty and go to Koblenz. Then, returning to the true object of the petition, he added: "The executive power is not in union with you; we require no other proof of it than the dismissal of the patriot ministers. It is thus, then, that the happiness of a free nation shall depend on the caprice of a king! But should this king have any other will than that of the law? The people will have it so, and the life of the people is as valuable as that of crowned despots. That life is the genealogical tree of the nation, and the feeble reed must bend before this sturdy oak! We complain, gentlemen, of the inactivity of our armies; we require you to learn the cause of this; if it springs from the executive power, let that power be destroyed!"^[15]

The Assembly answered that it would take the petitioners' request into consideration; it then urged them to respect the law and the legal authorities, and allowed them to march before the Assembly. Led by General Antoine Joseph Santerre, thirty thousand people, waving revolutionary banners and symbols, sang, as they traversed the hall, the famous chorus, Ça ira, and cried: "Vive la nation!" "Vivent les sans-culottes!" "À bas le veto!" On leaving the Assembly, the group proceeded to the King's chateau in the Tuileries Palace, led by the petitioners.^[16]

The outer doors were opened at the King's command, and the crowd rushed in. They ascended to the apartments, and while they were forcing the doors open with hatchets, the King ordered them to be opened, and appeared before the crowd, accompanied by a few persons. Louis XVI was placed in the recess of a window. Surrounded by National Guardsmen, who formed a barrier against the mob, and seated on a chair placed on a table, Louis remained calm and firm.^[16]

The crowd urged Louis to approve the decrees he had rejected. Louis responded: "This is neither the method nor the moment to obtain it of me." Attempting to mollify the mob, he placed on his head a red cap presented to him on the top of a pike. The crowd viewed this as a sign of humility. He then drank a glass of wine given to him by a half-drunken workman, and received strong applause.^[17]

Meanwhile, Assembly members Vergniaud and Maximin Isnard, along with a few deputies of the Gironde, had moved forward to protect the King and attempt to calm the mob. The Assembly, which had just met, convened again quickly, terrified at this outbreak, and dispatched several successive delegations to try to protect Louis XVI. Eventually the mayor himself, Pétion, arrived; he mounted a chair, harangued the people, and urged them to withdraw quietly. The people obeyed. Thus, these singular insurgents, whose only aim was to obtain decrees and ministers, retired without achieving their mission.^[17]

Aftermath

The demonstrators of 20 June did not obtain the immediate successes they had hoped for. The day's events were disowned by the Left of the Legislature, by the future Girondins, and by the Jacobins. Louis XVI, who had promised nothing, did not withdraw his veto. The petitioners thought they had converted him to the Revolution; instead, they found him to be embittered, humiliated, and irremediably hostile.^[18]

Europe saw the King insulted and treated as a prisoner. In parts of France, royalism regained popularity. A large number of departmental administrations protested against the insult offered to the majesty of royalty. Lafayette, leaving his army, visited the Assembly on 28 June, demanding in the name of his soldiers that the Assembly take action against the protesters, and "destroy a sect capable of infringing the national sovereignty." But on 2 July came the news that the Army of the North was in retreat and was falling back on Lille and Valenciennes. This made all the distrust and anxiety of the petitioners of 20 June seem justified.^[19]

In the Assembly on 3 July, Vergniaud denounced all the "treasonous" acts of Louis XVI. He recalled the royal veto, the disturbances it had caused in the provinces, and the deliberate inaction of the generals who had opened the way to invasion. Furthermore, he suggested to the Assembly – though by implication rather than directly – that Louis XVI might qualify under the Constitution as being "considered to have abdicated his royal office." Thus, he put the idea of deposing the King into the public's minds. His speech, which made an enormous impression, was circulated by the Assembly through all the departments of France.^[20]

It was now certain that there would be a more violent sequel to the demonstration of 20 June 1792. Jacobin Jacques Nicolas Billaud-Varenne outlined a program for the next insurrection: exile the King, dismiss the generals, elect a National Convention, transfer the royal veto to the people, deport all public enemies, and exempt the poor from taxation. This program was repeated, almost unchanged, in a strongly worded manifesto drawn up by Robespierre, and proclaimed by a federal orator before the House. The real question was how it would be carried out.^[21]

The answer came on 10 August 1792 with the storming of the Tuileries Palace.

References

^ ^a ^b Soboul 1974, p. 241.
^ Lefebvre 1962, p. 225.
^ Lefebvre 1962, p. 222.
^ ^a ^b Lefebvre 1962, p. 223.
^ Vovelle 1984, p. 224.
^ Pfeiffer 1913, p. 13.
^ Pfeiffer 1913, p. 14.
^ Pfeiffer 1913, p. 16.
^ Lefebvre 1962, p. 227.
^ Soboul 1974, p. 245.
^ Vovelle 1984, p. 226.
^ Pfeiffer 1913, p. 56.
^ Taine 2011, p. 298.
^ Pfeiffer 1913, p. 63.
^ ^a ^b Mignet 1824, p. 156.
^ ^a ^b Mignet 1824, p. 157.
^ ^a ^b Mignet 1824, p. 158.
^ Aulard 1910, p. 365.
^ Aulard 1910, p. 366.
^ Mathiez 1929, p. 155.
^ Thompson 1959, p. 281.

Sources

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Demonstration of 20 of June 1792.

Aulard, François-Alphonse (1910). The French Revolution, a Political History, 1789-1804, in 4 vols. Vol. I. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.
Hampson, Norman (1988). A Social History of the French Revolution. Routledge: University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0-710-06525-6.
Lefebvre, Georges (1962). The French Revolution: from its Origins to 1793. Vol. I. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-08599-0.
Madelin, Louis (1926). The French Revolution. London: William Heinemann Ltd.
Mathiez, Albert (1929). The French Revolution. New York: Alfred a Knopf.
Mignet, François (1824). History of the French Revolution from 1789 to 1814. Project Gutenberg EBook.
Pfeiffer, L. B. (1913). The Uprising of June 20, 1792. Lincoln: New Era Printing Company.
Rude, George (1972). The Crowd in the French Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Soboul, Albert (1974). The French Revolution: 1787-1799. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-394-47392-2.
Taine, Hippolyte (2011). The Origins of Contemporary France, Volume 3. Project Gutenberg EBook.
Thompson, J. M. (1959). The French Revolution. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Vovelle, Michel (1984). The Fall of the French monarchy 1787-1792. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-28916-5.

This page was last edited on 15 December 2023, at 20:24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia