Revolution

Hot Seat

Instructions: Read and analyze the documents related to Revolution in Period 2. Critique
the ideas and arguments in an academic style. Thomas Jefferson, Napoleon Bonaparte,
Toussaint LOuverture, Maximilien Robespierre, and Klemens von Metternich will be in the
Hot Seat. Generate four questions for each man (total of fifteen). Of the four, one must be a
question supportive of the ideas, while three must be critical. Questions must be solid,
open-ended, critical questions that prompt Jefferson, Bonaparte, LOuverture, Robespierre,
and Metternich to support or defend their positions. Although the focus is on the idea of
revolution, you may find additional issues within the documents to prompt those in the Hot
Seat to explain their positions. This discussion will take place on Friday, November 19,
2015.

Introductory Documents
Document 1: Excerpts from The Prince written by Machiavelli in 1505

I say that it would be well to be reputed liberal. Nevertheless, liberality exercised in a way that does
not bring you the reputation for it, injures you; for if one exercises it honestly and as it should be
exercised, it may not become known, and you will not avoid the reproach of its opposite. Therefore,
anyone wishing to maintain among men the name of liberal is obliged to avoid no attribute of
magnificence; so that a prince thus inclined will consume in such acts all his property, and will be
compelled in the end, if he wish to maintain the name of liberal, to unduly weigh down his people, and
tax them, and do everything he can to get money. This will soon make him odious to his subjects, and
becoming poor he will be little valued by any one; thus, with his liberality, having offended many and
rewarded few, he is affected by the very first trouble and imperilled by whatever may be the first
danger; recognizing this himself, and wishing to draw back from it, he runs at once into the reproach of
being miserly
Therefore, a prince, not being able to exercise this virtue of liberality in such a way that it is
recognized, except to his cost, if he is wise he ought not to fear the reputation of being mean, for in
time he will come to be more considered than if liberal, seeing that with his economy his revenues are
enough, that he can defend himself against all attacks, and is able to engage in enterprises without
burdening his people; thus it comes to pass that he exercises liberality towards all from whom he does
not take, who are numberless, and meanness towards those to whom he does not give, who are few
Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred;
because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he
abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary
for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest
cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more
quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Besides, pretexts for taking
away the property are never wanting; for he who has once begun to live by robbery will always find
pretexts for seizing what belongs to others; but reasons for taking life, on the contrary, are more
difficult to find and sooner lapse. But when a prince is with his army, and has under control a
multitude of soldiers, then it is quite necessary for him to disregard the reputation of cruelty, for
without it he would never hold his army united or disposed to its duties.


Document 2: Excerpts from Leviathan, written by Thomas Hobbes in 1651
So that in the first place, I put for a general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of
power after power, that ceaseth only in death. And the cause of this is not always that a man hopes for
a more intensive delight than he has already attained to, or that he cannot be content with a moderate
power, but because he cannot assure the power and means to live well, which he hath present, without
the acquisition of more. And from hence it is that kings, whose power is greatest, turn their
endeavours to the assuring it at home by laws, or abroad by wars: and when that is done, there
succeedeth a new desire; in some, of fame from new conquest; in others, of ease and sensual pleasure;
in others, of admiration, or being flattered for excellence in some art or other ability of the mind

The greatest of human powers is that which is compounded of the powers of most men, united by
consent, in one person, natural or civil, that has the use of all their powers depending on his will; such
as is the power of a Commonwealth: or depending on the wills of each particular such as is the power
of a faction, or of diverse. factions leagued. Therefore to have servants is power; to have friends is
power: for they are strengths united. Also, riches joined with liberality is power; because it procureth
friends and servants: without liberality, not so; because in this case they defend not, but expose men to
envy, as a prey. Reputation of power is power; because it draweth with it the adherence of those that
need protection. So is reputation of love of a mans country, called popularity, for the same reason.
Also, what quality soever maketh a man beloved or feared of many, or the reputation of such quality, is
power; because it is a means to have the assistance and service of many. Good success is power;
because it maketh reputation of wisdom or good fortune, which makes men either fear him or rely on
him. Affability of men already in power is increase of power; because it gaineth love. Reputation of
prudence in the conduct of peace or war is power; because to prudent men we commit the
government of ourselves more willingly than to others. Nobility is power, not in all places, but only in
those Commonwealths where it has privileges; for in such privileges consisteth their power. Eloquence
is power; because it is seeming prudence. Form is power; because being a promise of good, it
recommendeth men to the favour of women and strangers.

Document 3: Excerpts from The Two Treatises of Civil Government written by John Locke in 1689
But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an
uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy
himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare
preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one:
and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and
independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.
He who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of
war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to
conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased
when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to
have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of
my freedom, i. e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation;
and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom
which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a
state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any
one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that
freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the
freedom belonging to those of that society or common-wealth, must be supposed to design to take
away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war
This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a mans
preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a
man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact enslave himself to any one, nor put
himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another No body can give more power than he has
himself Whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power
by resisting the will of his master, to draw on himself the death he desires.

Document 4: The Social Contract Written by Jean Jacques Rousseau in 1762

We have seen that the legislative power belongs to the people, and can belong to it alone. It may, on
the other hand, readily be seen, from the principles laid down above, that the executive power cannot
belong to the generality as legislature or Sovereign, because it consists wholly of particular acts which
fall outside the competency of the law, and consequently of the Sovereign, whose acts must always be
laws.
The public force therefore needs an agent of its own to bind it together and set it to work under the
direction of the general will, to serve as a means of communication between the State and the
Sovereign, and to do for the collective person more or less what the union of soul and body does for
man. Here we have what is, in the State, the basis of government, often wrongly confused with the
Sovereign, whose minister it is
On the other side, all governments are not of the same nature: some are less voracious than others,
and the differences between them are based on this second principle, that the further from their
source the public contributions are removed, the more burdensome they become. The charge should
be measured not by the amount of the impositions, but by the path they have to travel in order to get
back to those from whom they came. When the circulation is prompt and well-established, it does not
matter whether much or little is paid; the people is always rich and, financially speaking, all is well. On
the contrary, however little the people gives, if that little does not return to it, it is soon exhausted by
giving continually: the State is then never rich, and the people is always a people of beggars.
In fact, the more we reflect, the more we find the difference between free and monarchical States to be
this: in the former, everything is used for the public advantage; in the latter, the public forces and
those of individuals are affected by each other, and either increases as the other grows weak; finally,
instead of governing subjects to make them happy, despotism makes them wretched in order to
govern them.
We find then, in every climate, natural causes according to which the form of government which it
requires can be assigned, and we can even say what sort of inhabitants it should have.
As long as several men in assembly regard themselves as a single body, they have only a single will
which is concerned with their common preservation and general well-being. In this case, all the
springs of the State are vigorous and simple and its rules clear and luminous; there are no
embroilments or conflicts of interests; the common good is everywhere clearly apparent, and only
good sense is needed to perceive it. Peace, unity and equality are the enemies of political subtleties.
Men who are upright and simple are difficult to deceive because of their simplicity; lures and
ingenious pretexts fail to impose upon them, and they are not even subtle enough to be dupes. When,
among the happiest people in the world, bands of peasants are seen regulating affairs of State under an
oak, and always acting wisely, can we help scorning the ingenious methods of other nations, which
make themselves illustrious and wretched with so much art and mystery?
A State so governed needs very few laws; and, as it becomes necessary to issue new ones, the
necessity is universally seen. The first man to propose them merely says what all have already felt, and
there is no question of factions or intrigues or eloquence in order to secure the passage into law of
what every one has already decided to do, as soon as he is sure that the rest will act with him.

Documents Related to Revolution

Document 5: Excerpt from Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson 1776
Prudence ... will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and
transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object
evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off
such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Document 6: Letter to William S. Smith Paris, Thomas Jefferson 1787
God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always,
well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the
facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner
of death to the public liberty. We have had 13 states independent 11 years. There has been one
rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever
existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers
are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take
arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in
a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots &
tyrants. It is it's natural manure.

Document 7: Letter to Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson 1789
Dear Sir
Since my last, which was of May 19. I have received yours of June 17. and 18. I am struck with the idea
of the geometrical wheelbarrow, and will beg of you a further account if it can be obtained. I have no
news yet of my Cong.
Tho you have doubtless heard most of the proceedings of the States general since my last, I will take
up the narration where that left it, that you may be able to separate the true from the false accounts
you have heard. A good part of what was conjecture in that letter is now become true history. A
conciliatory proposition from the king having been accepted by the Nobles with such modifications as
amounted to a refusal, the Commons voted it to be a refusal, and proceeded to give a last invitation to
the clergy and nobles to join them, and to examine the returns of elections. This done they declared
themselves the National assembly, resolved that all the subsisting taxes were illegally imposed, but
that they might continue to be paid to the end of their present session and no longer. A majority of the
clergy determined to accept their invitation and came and joined them. The king, by the advice of Mr.
Necker, determined to hold a seance royale, and to take upon himself to decide what should be done.
That decision as prepared by Necker was favorable to the Commons. The Aristocratical party made a
furious effort, prevailed on the king to change the decision totally in favor of the other orders, and at
the seance royale he delivered it accordingly. The Common chamber (that is the Tiers and majority of
the clergy who had joined them) bound themselves together by a solemn oath never to separate till
they had accomplished the work for which they had met. Paris and Versailles were thrown into tumult
and riot. The souldiers in and about them, including even the kings life guard, declared themselves
openly for the Commons, the accounts from the souldiery in the provinces was not more favorable, 48

of the Nobles left their body and joined the common chamber, the mob attacked the Archbishop of
Paris (a high aristocrat) under the Chateau of Versailles, a panick seised the inhabitants of the Chateau,
the next day the king wrote a letter with his own hand to the Chamber of Nobles and minority of the
Clergy, desiring them to join immediately the common chamber. They did so, and thus the victory of
the Tiers became complete. Several days were then employed about examining returns &c. It was
discovered at length that great bodies of troops and principally of the foreign corps were approaching
Paris from different quarters. They arrived in the number of 25, or 30,000 men. Great inquietude took
place, and two days ago the Assembly voted an address to the king for an explanation of this
phaenomenon and removal of the troops. His answer has not been given formally, but he verbally
authorised their president to declare that these troops had nothing in view but the quiet of the Capital;
and that that being once established they should be removed. The fact is that the king never saw any
thing else in this measure; [but those who advised him to it, assuredly meant by the presence of the
troops to give him confidence, and to take advantage of some favorable moment to surprize some act
of authority from him. For this purpose they had got the military command within the isle of France
transferred to the Marshall de Broglio, a high flying aristocrat, cool and capable of every mischief.]1
But it turns out that these troops shew strong symptoms of being entirely with the people, so that
nothing is apprehended from them. The National assembly then (for that is the name they take) having
shewn thro every stage of these transactions a coolness, wisdom, and resolution to set fire to the four
corners of the kingdom and to perish with it themselves rather than to relinquish an iota from their
plan of a total change of government, are now in complete and undisputed possession of the
sovereignty. The executive and the aristocracy are now at their feet: the mass of the nation, the mass of
the clergy, and the army are with them. They have prostrated the old government, and are now
beginning to build one from the foundation
I have always been afraid their numbers might lead to confusion. 1200 men in one room are too many.
I have still that fear. Another apprehension is that a majority cannot be induced to adopt the trial by
jury; and I consider that as the only anchor, ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be
held to the principles of its constitution.Mr. Paradise is the bearer of this letter. He can supply those
details which would be too lengthy to write.If my Cong comes within a few days, I shall depart in
the instant: if it does not I shall put off my voiage till the Equinox is over. I am with great esteem Dear
Sir Your friend & servant,
T. Jefferson
Document 8: Robespierre Speech at the Constituent Assembly, 1791
I come to ask, not the gods, but legislators who should be the organs and the interpreters of the
eternal laws that the divinity dictated to men to erase from the code of the French the blood laws
that command judicial murders, and that their morals and their new constitution reject. I want to
prove to them: 1- that the death penalty is essentially unjust and, 2- that it isnt the most repressive of
penalties and that it multiplies crimes more than it prevents them.
Outside of civil society, if a bitter enemy makes an attempt on my life or, pushed away twenty times, he
returns again to ravage the field that I cultivated with my own hands; since I have only my individual
strength to oppose to his I must either perish or kill him, and the law of natural defense justifies and
approves me. But in society, when the force of all is armed against only one, what principle of justice
could authorize it to kill him? What necessity can absolve it? A victor who kills his captive enemies is
called a barbarian! A grown man who kills a child that he could disarm and punish seems to us a
monster! An accused man condemned by society is nothing else for it but a defeated and powerless
enemy. Before it, he is weaker than a child before a grown man.
Thus, in the eyes of truth and justice these scenes of death that it orders with so much ceremony, are
nothing but cowardly assassinations, nothing but solemn crimes committed not by individuals but by
entire nations using legal forms. However cruel, however extravagant the laws, do not be surprised:
they are the work of a few tyrants, they are the chains with which they weigh down the human race,
they are the arms with which they subjugate it, they were written in blood. The death penalty is

necessary, you say. If this is true, then why have several peoples done without it? By what fatality were
these people the wisest, the happiest and the freest? If the death penalty is the most apt to prevent
great crimes, then they should then have been most rare among the peoples who adopted and used it.
But the facts are precisely the contrary.
The first obligation of a legislator is to form and preserve public morals, the source of all freedom,
source of all social happinessIf in place of this powerful, calm and moderate severity that should
characterize it they place anger and vengeance; if they spill human blood that they could spare and
that they have no right to spread; if they spread out before the people cruel scenes and cadavers
wounded by torture, it then alters in the hearts of citizens the ideas of the just and the unjust; they
plant the seed in the midst of society of ferocious prejudices that will produce others in their turn. Man
is no longer for man so sacred an object: we have a less grand idea of his dignity when public authority
puts his life at risk. The idea of murder inspires less fear when the law itself gives the example and the
spectacle. The horror of crime is diminished when it is punished by another crime. Do not confuse the
effectiveness of a penalty with the excess of severity: the one is absolutely opposed to the other.
Everything seconds moderate laws; everything conspires against cruel laws.
It has been observed that in free countries crime was more rare and penal laws more gentle. All ideas
hold together. Free countries are those where the rights of man are respected and where,
consequently, the laws are just. Where they offend humanity by an excess of rigor this is a proof that
the dignity of man is not known there, that that of the citizen doesnt exist. It is a proof that the
legislator is nothing but a master who commands slaves and who pitilessly punishes them according to
his whim. I thus conclude that the death penalty should be abrogated.

Document 9: Letter to William Short, Thomas Jefferson 1793
The tone of your letters had for some time given me pain, on account of the extreme warmth with
which they censured the proceedings of the Jacobins of France. I considered that sect as the same with
the Republican patriots, and the Feuillants as the Monarchical patriots, well known in the early part of
the revolution, and but little distant in their views, both having in object the establishment of a free
constitution, and differing only on the question whether their chief Executive should be hereditary or
not. The Jacobins (as since called) yielded to the Feuillants and tried the experiment of retaining their
hereditary Executive. The experiment failed completely, and would have brought on the
reestablishment of despotism had it been pursued. The Jacobins saw this, and that the expunging that
officer was of absolute necessity, and the Nation was with them in opinion, for however they might
have been formerly for the constitution framed by the first assembly, they were come over from their
hope in it, and were now generally Jacobins. In the struggle which was necessary, many guilty persons
fell without the forms of trial, and with them some innocentIt was necessary to use the arm of the
people, a machine not quite so blind as balls and bombs, but blind to a certain degree. A few of their
cordial friends met at their hands, the fate of enemies. But time and truth will rescue and embalm their
memories, while their posterity will be enjoying that very liberty for which they would never have
hesitated to offer up their lives. The liberty of the whole earth was depending on the issue of the
contest, and was ever such a prize won with so little innocent blood? My own affections have been
deeply wounded by some of the martyrs to this cause, but rather than it should have failed, I would
have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left
free, it would be better than as it now is. I have expressed to you my sentiments, because they are
really those of 99 in an hundred of our citizens. The universal feasts, and rejoicings which have lately
been had on account of the successes of the French shewed the genuine effusions of their hearts. You
have been wounded by the sufferings of your friends, and have by this circumstance been hurried into
a temper of mind which would be extremely disrelished if known to your countrymen. The reserve of

the Pres. of the U.S. had never permitted me to discover the light in which he viewed it, and as I was
more anxious that you should satisfy him than me, I had still avoided explanations with you on the
subjectThe successes of republicanism in France have given the coup de grace to their prospects, and
I hope to their projects.I have developed to you faithfully the sentiments of your country, that you
may govern yourself accordingly. I know your republicanism to be pure, and that it is no decay of that
which has embittered you against it's votaries in France, but too great a sensibility at the partial evil by
which it's object has been accomplished there.

Document 10: Letter to James Monroe, Thomas Jefferson 1793
The situation of the St. Domingo fugitives (aristocrats as they are) calls aloud for pity and charity.
Never was so deep a tragedy presented to the feelings of man...I become daily more and more
convinced that all the West India Island will remain in the hands of the people of colour, and a total
expulsion of the whites sooner or later take place. It is high time we should foresee the bloody scenes
which our children certainly, and possibly ourselves (south of the Potomac), have to wade through and
try to avert them."

Document 11: Robespierre speech on the Revolutionary Government, 1794
The theory of revolutionary government is as new as the Revolution that created it It behooves us to
explain it to all in order that we may rally good citizens, at least, in support of the principles governing
the public interest. It is the function of the government to guide the moral and physical energies of the
nation toward the purposes for which it was established. The object of constitutional government is to
preserve the Republic; the object of the revolutionary government is to establish it. Revolution is the
war waged by liberty against its enemies; a constitution is that which crowns the edifice of freedom
once victory has been won and the nation is at peace. The revolutionary government has to summon
extraordinary activity to its aid precisely because it is at war. It is subjected to less binding and less
uniform regulations, because the circumstances in which it finds itself are tempestuous and shifting
above all because it is compelled to deploy, swiftly, and incessantly, new resources to meet new and
pressing dangers. The principal concern of constitutional government is civil liberty; that of
revolutionary government, public liberty. Under a constitutional government little more is required
than to protect the individual against abuses by the state, whereas revolutionary government is
obliged to defend the state itself against the factions that assail it from every quarter. To good citizens
revolutionary government owes the full protection of the state; to the enemies of the people it owes
only death.

Document 12: Robespierres Justification on the use of Terror, 1794

Now, what is the fundamental principle of the democratic or popular government-that is, the essential
spring which makes it move? It is virtue; I am speaking of the public virtue which effected so many
prodigies in Greece and Rome and which ought to produce much more surprising ones in republican
France; of that virtue which is nothing other than the love of country and of its laws.
But as the essence of the republic or of democracy is equality, it follows that the love of country
necessarily includes the love of equality.
It is also true that this sublime sentiment assumes a preference for the public interest over every
particular interest; hence the love of country presupposes or produces all the virtues: for what are
they other than that spiritual strength which renders one capable of those sacrifices? And how could
the s lave of avarice or ambition, for example, sacrifice his idol to his country?

Not only is virtue the soul of democracy; it can exist only in that government
Republican virtue can be considered in relation to the people and in relation to the government; it is
necessary in both. When only the government lacks virtue, there remains a resource in the people's
virtue; but when the people itself is corrupted, liberty is already lost.
Fortunately virtue is natural to the people, notwithstanding aristocratic prejudices. A nation is truly
corrupted when, having by degrees lost its character and its liberty, it passes from democracy to
aristocracy or to monarchy; that is the decrepitude and death of the body politic. ...
But when, by prodigious efforts of courage and reason, a people breaks the chains of despotism to
make them into trophies of liberty; when by the force of its moral temperament it comes, as it were,
out of the arms of the death, to recapture all the vigor of youth; when by tums it is sensitive and proud,
intrepid and docile, and can be stopped neither by impregnable ramparts nor by the innumerable
armies of the tyrants armed against it, but stops of itself upon confronting the law's image; then if it
does not climb rapidly to the summit of its destinies, this can only be the fault of those who govern it
From all this let us deduce a great truth: the characteristic of popular government is confidence in the
people and severity towards itself.
The whole development of our theory would end here if you had only to pilot the vessel of the
Republic through calm waters; but the tempest roars, and the revolution imposes on you another task.
This great purity of the French revolution's basis, the very sublimity of its objective, is precisely what
causes both our strength and our weakness. Our strength, because it gives to us truth's ascendancy
over imposture, and the rights of the public interest over private interests; our weakness, because it
rallies all vicious men against us, all those who in their hearts contemplated despoiling the people and
all those who intend to let it be despoiled with impunity, both those who have rejected freedom as a
personal calamity and those who have embraced the revolution as a career and the Republic as prey.
Hence the defection of so many ambitious or greedy men who since the point of departure have
abandoned us along the way because they did not begin the journey with the same destination in view.
The two opposing spirits that have been represented in a struggle to rule nature might be said to be
fighting in this great period of human history to fix irrevocably the world's destinies, and France is the
scene of this fearful combat. Without, all the tyrants encircle you; within, all tyranny's friends conspire;
they will conspire until hope is wrested from crime. We must smother the internal and external
enemies of the Republic or perish with it; now in this situation, the first maxim of your policy ought to
be to lead the people by reason and the people's enemies by terror.
If the spring of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the springs of popular government in
revolution are at once virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which
virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an
emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special principle as it is a consequence of the general principle
of democracy applied to our country's most urgent needs.
It has been said that terror is the principle of despotic government. Does your government therefore
resemble despotism? Yes, as the sword that gleams in the hands of the heroes of liberty resembles that
with which the henchmen of tyranny are armed. Let the despot govern by terror his brutalized
subjects; he is right, as a despot. Subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as
founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is liberty's despotism against tyranny. Is
force made only to protect crime? And is the thunderbolt not destined to strike the heads of the proud?

Document 13: Letter to Citizens Directors, Toussaint LOuverture 1797

It is for you, Citizens Directors, to turn from over our heads the storm, which the eternal enemies of
our liberty are preparing in the shades of silence. It is for you to enlighten the legislature; it is for you
to prevent the enemies of the present system from spreading themselves on our unfortunate shores to
[stain] it with new crimes. Do not allow our brothers, our friends, to be sacrificed to men who wish to
reign over the ruins of the [people]. But no, your wisdom will enable you to avoid the dangerous
snares which our common enemies hold out for you....
I send you with this letter a declaration which will acquaint you with the unity that exists between the
[owners] of San Domingo who are in France, those in the United States, and those who serve under the
English banner. You will see there a resolution, [only one possible meaning] and carefully constructed,
for the restoration of slavery; you will see there that their determination to succeed has led them to
[wrap or cover] themselves in the mantle of [freedom] in order to strike it more deadly blows. You will
see that they are counting heavily on my [satisfaction] in lending myself to their [deceitful] views by
my fear for my children...
I shall never hesitate between the safety of San Domingo and my personal happiness; but I have
nothing to fear. It is to the [care] of the French Government that I have confided my children.... Do they
think that men who have been able to enjoy the blessing of [freedom] will calmly see it snatched away?
They supported their chains only so long as they did not know any condition of life more happy than
that of slavery. But to-day when they have left it, if they had a thousand lives they would sacrifice them
all rather than be forced into slavery again. But no, the same hand, which has broken our chains, will
not enslave us [again]. France will not [take back] her principles; she will not withdraw from us the
greatest of her benefits. She will protect us against all our enemies; she will not permit her [character]
to be [distorted], those principles, which do her most honor to be destroyed, her most beautiful
achievement to be [reduced]... But if, to re-establish slavery in San Domingo, this was done, then I
declare to you it would be to attempt the impossible: we have known how to face dangers to obtain
our liberty; we shall know how to brave death to maintain it.
This, Citizens Directors, is the morale of the people of San Domingo; those are the principles that they
transmit to you by me.

Document 14: Letter to the Minister of Marine, Toussaint LOuverture 1799

The first successes obtained in Europe by the partisans of liberty over the agents of despotism were
not slow to ignite the sacred fire of patriotism in the souls of all Frenchmen in St. Domingue. At that
time, men's hopes turned to France, whose first steps toward her regeneration promised them a
happier future... [The whites in St. Domingue] wanted to escape from their arbitrary government, but
they did not intend the revolution to destroy either the prejudices that slavery of the blacks, whom
they held in dependency by the strongest law. In their opinion, the benefits of the French regeneration
were only for them. They proved it by their obstinate refusal to allow the people of color to enjoy their
political rights and the slaves to enjoy the liberty that they claimed. Thus, while whites were erecting
another form of government upon the rubble of despotism, the men of color and the blacks united
themselves in order to claim their political existence; the resistance of the former having become
stronger, it was necessary for the latter to rise up in order to obtain [political recognition] by force of
arms. The whites, fearing that this legitimate resistance would bring general liberty to St. Domingue,
sought to separate the men of color from the cause of the blacks in accordance with Machiavelli's
principle of divide and rule they had anticipated, the men of color, many of whom are slave holders,
had only been using the blacks to gain on political commands.

Fearing the enfranchisement of the blacks, the men of color deserted their comrades in arms, their
companions in misfortune, and aligned themselves with the whites to subdue them. Treacherously
abandoned, the blacks fought for some time against the reunited whites and the men of color; but,
pressed on all sides, losing hope, they accepted the offers of the Spanish king, who, having at that time
declared war on France, offered freedom to those blacks of St. Domingue who would join his armies.
Indeed, the silence of pre-Republican France on the long-standing claims for their natural rights made
by the most interested, the noblest, the most useful portion of the population of St. Domingue...
extinguished all glimmer of hope in the hearts of the black slaves and forced them, in spite of
themselves, to throw themselves into the arms of a protective power that offered the only benefit for
which they would fight. More unfortunate than guilty, they turned their arms against their fatherland...
Such with the crimes of these blacks, which have earned them to this day the insulting titles of
brigands, insurgents, rebels... At that time, I was one of the leaders of these auxiliary troops, and I can
say without fear of contradiction that I owed my elevation in these circumstances only to the
confidence that I had inspired in my brothers by the virtues for which I am still honored today...

Document 15: Proclamation to the French People, Napoleon Bonaparte 1799
On my return to Paris [from Egypt] I found division among all authorities, and agreement upon only
one point, namely, that the Constitution was half destroyed and was unable to save liberty.
All parties came to me, confided to me their designs, disclosed their secrets, and requested my
support; I refused to be the man of a party.
The Council of Elders summoned me; I answered its appeal. A plan of general restoration had been
devised by men whom the nation has been accustomed to regard as the defenders of liberty, equality,
and property; this plan required an examination, calm, free, exempt from all influence and all fear.
Accordingly, the Council of Elders resolved upon the removal of the legislative Body to Saint-Cloud; it
gave me the responsibility of disposing the force necessary for its independence. I believe it my duty to
my fellow citizens, to the soldiers perishing in our armies, to the national glory acquired at the cost of
their blood, to accept the command.
The Councils assembled at Saint-Cloud; republican troops guaranteed their security from without, but
assassins created terror within. Several deputies of the Council of Five Hundred, armed with stilettos
and firearms, circulated threats of death around them.
The plans which ought to have been developed were withheld, the majority disorganized, the boldest
orators disconcerted, and the futility of every wise proposition was evident.
I took my indignation and grief to the Council of Elders. I besought it to assure the execution of its
generous designs; I directed its attention to the evils of the Patrie [Fatherland] . . . ; it concurred with
me by new evidence of its steadfast will.
I presented myself at the Council of Five Hundred, alone, unarmed, my head uncovered, just as the
Elders had received and applauded me; I came to remind the majority of its wishes, and to assure it of
its power.
The stilettos which menaced the deputies were instantly raised against their liberator; twenty
assassins threw themselves upon me and aimed at my breast. The grenadiers of the Legislative Body
whom I had left at the door of the hall ran forward, placed themselves between the assassins and
myself. One of these brave grenadiers had his clothes pierced by a stiletto. They bore me out.
At the same moment cries of Outlaw were raised against the defender of the law. It was the fierce cry
of assassins against the power destined to repress them.
They crowded around the president, uttering threats, arms in their hands they commanded him to
outlaw me; I was informed of this: I ordered him to be rescued from their fury, and six grenadiers of
the Legislative Body secured him. Immediately afterwards some grenadiers of the legislative body
charged
into the hall and cleared it

The factions, intimidated, dispersed and fled. The majority, freed from their attacks, returned freely
and peaceably into the meeting hall, listened to the proposals on behalf of public safety, deliberated,
and prepared the salutary resolution which is to become the new and provisional law of the Republic.
Frenchmen, you will doubtless recognize in this conduct the zeal of a soldier of liberty, a citizen
devoted to the Republic. Conservative, tutelary, and liberal ideas have been restored to their rights
through the dispersal of the rebels who oppressed the Councils.

Document 16: Final Proclamation, Toussaint LOuverture 1801
Citizens: I have learned that there are malicious ones in your midst among whom one was just
arrested who, loving only disorder, provoke the disunity of citizens and the disorganization of the
current state of affairs; who, jealous of all Ive done for the prosperity of this colony seem to desire
nothing else than seeing French blood flow.
Since the news of the peace between France and England, which cannot be considered certain as long
as the government doesnt announce it to me officially, these malicious ones spread the rumor that
France will be coming with thousands of men to annihilate the colony and freedom. Are they not
ashamed to say before officers and soldiers who, since the beginning of the Revolution, have shed their
blood for the triumph of liberty and the prosperity of this island that France will reduce them, will
again plunge these soldiers into slavery and destroy the officers? How can they maintain such
language? Do they think that France for no reason wants to destroy its children of Saint-Domingue
who, victors over all their enemies internal as well as external have preserved this colony for it
and, by wresting it from the hands of anarchy, have made it flourish; that they will pay with
ingratitude men who have never ceased deserving well of it?
Fortunately the wish loudly manifested by a few evil men is not that of the majority of citizens. In the
midst of the sorrows their evil intentions cause me it is consoling for me to be able to tell myself that
among the inhabitants of this colony there are good landowners, courageous people, and good fathers
who do not share their wickedness and who, friends of both the colony and France and attached to the
liberty as well as the prosperity of Saint-Domingue, desire only peace, which alone can return this
colony to its former splendor. The hope they placed in me and my comrades in arms will not be
betrayed. They will always find in us ardent protectors, true friends, zealous defenders. But you who,
to fan the flames of discord impute liberticide intentions and destructive projects to the French
government and who, in order to provide these claims with some foundation, say that the government
did not want to return my sons to me because they wanted to keep them as hostages until they could
carry out their plans; who, in order to embitter spirits and increase the number of the wicked assure
with the same shamelessness that the government will gather together all the men of color and Blacks
in France to send them to Saint-Domingue and have them march before the army which has been sent
to annihilate them: you who say this will obtain nothing but our contempt. It is true that I sent for my
children and that they have not yet arrived. But though I am quite annoyed with this delay for I asked
for nothing but what belongs to me nevertheless I am far from thinking in the same way as the
wicked. Confident in the principles of honor and dignity of the French government it would never
enter my heart to suppose it has the projects you impute to it. People of good faith, those attached to
the prosperity of this country, the impartial who will reflect on what you say can also not believe that
if France abandoned this colony to its own devices at a time when its enemies disputed its possession,
that today, when its own children have rid it of all its enemies, it should want to send an army there to
destroy those men who have never ceased to serve it well and bring about the annihilation of the
landowners and land of the colony. They will feel that such a project could only have been given birth
to by the enemies of Saint-Domingue who, like you, are jealous of its prosperity; by men who have not
shared the suffering of those who there combated the enemies of the Republic, or who collaborated

in bringing calm order and public prosperity there. But in the case that the injustice you suppose on
the part of the French government is real, it is enough for me to tell you that a child who knows the
rights that nature gave him over the authors of his days demonstrates his obedience to his father and
mother, and that if despite his submission and obedience his father and mother are unnatural enough
to want to wipe him out he has nothing left to him but to place vengeance in the hands of God. I am a
soldier and I dont fear men: I fear only God. If I must die I will die like a soldier of honor who has
nothing to reproach himself for.
While waiting for the events whose evil threatens us I will nonetheless continue, as usual and in
conformity with the constitution, to see to it that persons and property are respected, to see to the
prosperity of the colony, to protect all individuals. But while the greatest protection has been accorded
to peaceful individuals it is my obligation to pursue the malicious and the disturbers of public peace.
Consequently, the constituted authorities of the colony are invited to denounce to me all those who, by
their statements or conduct, are capable of troubling the good order and tranquility we enjoy so that
their deportation can be ordered by me as unworthy to remain in a country they want to overturn. I
also recommend to all the generals and commanders of departments, arrondissements, and quarters
the full and entire execution of my proclamation of 4 Frimaire and to think well on all its points in
order not to stray from the dispositions it contains.
Brave military personnel, generals, officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers, do not listen to
the evil ones who ask nothing better than to do you harm in order to have a pretext to dishonor you.
Attached to the soil of this country, unite yourselves with your chief to render it fruitful and to
preserve it in its current state of prosperity. Ever on the path of honor, I will show you the route you
must follow. You are soldiers; you must be faithful observers of the subordination and military virtues,
and must vanquish or die at your posts.

Document 17: Catholic Church Concordat of 1801, Napoleon Bonaparte

The government of the French Republic recognizes that the Roman, catholic and apostolic religion is
the religion of the great majority of French citizens.
His Holiness likewise recognizes that this same religion has derived and in this moment again expects
the greatest benefit and grandeur from the establishment of catholic worship in France and from the
personal profession of it which the Consuls of the Republic make.
In consequence, after this mutual recognition, as well for the benefit of religion as for the maintenance
of internal tranquility, they have agreed as follows:
1. The catholic, apostolic and Roman religion shall be freely exercised in France: its worship shall be
public, and in conformity with the police regulations which the government shall deem necessary for
the public tranquility. . . .
4. The First Consul of the Republic shall make appointments, within the three months which shall
follow the publication of the bull of His Holiness to the archbishoprics and bishoprics of the new
circumscription. His Holiness shall confer the canonical institution, following the forms established in
relation to France before the change of government. . . .
6. Before entering upon their functions, the bishops shall take directly, at the hands of the First Consul,
the oath of fidelity which was in use before the change of government, expressed in the following
terms:
I swear and promise to God, upon the holy scriptures, to remain in obedience and fidelity to the
government established by the constitution of the French Republic. I also promise not to have any
intercourse, nor to assist by any council, nor to support any league, either within or without, which is
inimical to the public tranquility; and if, within my diocese or elsewhere, I learn that anything to the
prejudice of the state is being contrived, I will make it known to the government.

Document 18: French Civil Code, Napoleon Bonaparte, 1804

Of the Privation of Civil Rights by the Loss of the Quality of Frenchman.
The quality of Frenchman shall be lost, 1st, by naturalization in a foreign country; 2d, by accepting,
without the authority of government, public employments bestowed by a foreign power; 3dly, by
adoption into any foreign corporation which shall require distinctions of birth; 4thly, in short, by any
settlement made in a foreign country, without intention of return.
Commercial establishments shall never be considered as having been made without intention of
return. A Frenchman, who shall have lost his quality of Frenchman, may at any time recover it by
returning to France with the sanction of government, declaring at, the same time his intention to settle
there, and his renunciation of every distinction inconsistent with the law of France.
A Frenchwoman, who shall espouse a foreigner, shall follow the condition of her husband.
If she become a widow, she shall recover the quality of Frenchwoman, provided she already reside in
France, or that she return thither under the sanction of government, and declare at the same time her
intention to fix there. The individuals who shall recover the quality of Frenchman or Frenchwoman in
the cases provided for by Articles 10, 18, and 19, shall not be permitted to avail themselves of it until
they have fulfilled the conditions imposed upon them by those articles, and only for the exercise of
rights open to their advantage after that period.
The Frenchman who, without the authority of the government, shall engage in military service with a
foreign power, or shall enroll himself in any foreign military association, shall lose his quality of
Frenchman.
He shall not be permitted to re-enter France without the permission of the government, nor to recover
the quality of Frenchman except by complying with the conditions required of a foreigner in order to
become a citizen; and this without affecting the punishments denounced by the criminal law against
Frenchmen who have borne or shall bear arms against their country.
Of the Privation of Civil Rights in Consequence of Judicial Proceedings.
Sentences to punishments, the effect of which is to deprive the party condemned of all participation in
the civil rights hereafter mentioned, shall imply civil death. Sentence to natural death shall imply civil
death.
By civil death, the party condemned loses his property in all the goods which he possessed; and the
succession is open for the benefit of his heirs, on whom his estate devolves, in the same manner as if
he were naturally dead and intestate.
He can no longer inherit any estate, nor transmit, by this title, the property which he has acquired in
consequence.
He is no longer capable of disposing of his property, in whole or in part, either by way of gift during his
life, or by will, nor of receiving by similar title, except for the purpose of subsistence. He cannot be
nominated guardian, nor concur in any act relative to guardianship.
He cannot be a witness in any solemn public act, nor be admitted to give evidence in any court. He
cannot engage in any suit, whether as defendant or plaintiff, except in the name and by the
intervention of a special curator appointed for him by the court in which the action is brought.
He is incapable of contracting a marriage attended by any civil consequences.
If he have previously contracted marriage, it is dissolved, as respects all civil effects. His wife and his
heirs shall respectively exercise those rights and demands to which his natural death would have
given rise. Condemnations for contumacy shall not import civil death until after five years from the
execution of the sentence by representation, and during which the condemned party may make his
appearance.
Those condemned for contumacy shall, during five years, or until they shall make appearance, or until
their arrest during that period, be deprived of the exercise of civil rights. Their estate shall be
administered and their rights exercised in the same manner as those of absent persons. When the
party under sentence for contumacy shall appear voluntarily during the five years, to be reckoned

from the day of the execution, or when he shall have been seized and made prisoner during that
interval, the judgment shall be entirely reversed; the accused shall be restored to the possession of his
property; he shall be tried afresh; and if by the new judgment he is condemned to the same
punishment or a different punishment equally drawing after it civil death, it shall only take place from
the date of the execution of the second judgment.
Of the Enjoyment and Privation of Civil Rights:
The exercise of civil rights is independent of the quality of citizen, which is only acquired and
preserved conformably to the constitutional law.
Every Frenchman shall enjoy civil rights.
have borne or shall bear arms against their country.
Of the Rights and Respective Duties of Husband and Wife:
Husband and wife mutually owe to each other fidelity, succor, and assistance.
The husband owes protection to his wife, the wife obedience to her husband.
The wife is obliged to live with her husband, and to follow him wherever he may think proper to dwell:
the husband is bound to receive her, and to furnish her with everything necessary for the purposes of
life, according to his means and condition.
The husband may demand divorce for cause of adultery on the part of his wife.
The wife may demand divorce for cause of adultery on the part of her husband, where he shall have
kept his concubine in their common house.

Document 19: Letter to Friedrich Gentz in Perugia, Metternich 1819
The greatest, and therefore the most urgent, malady today is the press. I am all the more pleased to tell
you about the corresponding disciplinary measures that I am thinking of proposing to the Carlsbad
Congress, as I wish to have your unreserved opinion about my fundamental ideas, and for you to put
yourself in a position to lend me an active hand in Carlsbad, where the business must begin without
delay in order to be carried out immediately.
My proposals, briefly, are the following:
All German [princely] courts shall agree on disciplinary measures that strike them as necessary in
order to maintain public peace and, in the purest sense, the mutual support that is the foundation of
the German Confederation.
They proceed from the basic concept of the confederal system, namely that Germany consists of
sovereign states that have reached an understanding about mutual protection and assistance and,
although among themselves they are separate with respect to administration, appear abroad as an
aggregate power.
The domestic peace of the Confederation can be endangered and even broken by material
interventions of one German state into the sovereign rights of another. But this can also happen by
way of the moral impact of one government on others, or by the machinations of some party. If this
party is supported by a German state or even if it only finds refuge from one of the same it may find
the means, under cover of this refuge, to apply rebellious pressure against [other] neighboring states
from within that one neighboring state, and thus the domestic peace of the Confederation is disturbed,
and the prince who allows this mischief in his country makes himself guilty of a felony against the
Confederation. All German governments have come to the conclusion that the press today serves a
party that undermines all existing governments. The spirit of nationalism that has spread all across
Germany means that it does not rest within the power of individual states to protect their borders
from the malady; if this truth holds for individual governments, it holds no less for all German
governments, inasmuch as a Single German state even the smallest among them might want to
exclude itself from taking joint disciplinary measures for the maintenance of general peace.

Document 20: Excerpt from 1820 Political Creed, Klemens von Metternich
In absolute Monarchies the word acquires the meaning of "national representation." In those countries
which have only recently acquired a representative rgime, it goes by the name of development and
guarantees charters and basic laws.
In the one State where national representation is of long standing, its aim is reform.
But wherever it is found, it means change and trouble.
To paraphrase, what it means in absolute Monarchies is that "others must be more than your equals,
your wealth must pass into other hands and your ambitions, satisfied for centuries, must give way to
our ambitions, impatient and hitherto repressed."
In those States which have acquired a new form of rgime it means that "those ambitions satisfied
yesterday must give way to those of tomorrow and tomorrow has come."
And finally, in England, the only country in the third category, the rallying cry, which is that of reform,
combines these two meanings.
Europe thus presents itself to the impartial observer under an aspect which is both deplorable and
bizarre.
Everywhere we find that the people, whose sole wish is for the maintenance of peace and quiet,
faithful to God and their Princes, remain unmoved by the attractive offers and temptations repeatedly
put before them by members of factions who proclaim themselves their friends and who wish to
involve them in a movement which the people do not want!
[We find] Governments lacking in confidence, frightened, intimidated, and in disarray because of the
clamour of that intermediate class of society which, interposed between the Kings whose sceptres it
breaks and the people whose voice it usurps, has seized control of all avenues of approach to the
throne, that class so often disowned by the people in whose name it purports to speak and yet too
often listened to, flattered and feared by those who with one word could push it back into the abyss.