1

Revolutions of France and of Brabant

Jacobin Club 1792 Volume 1, Issue 2

Citizens, Sovereignty, and General Will

Do not fear people of France if the sovereign of a nation. But what is the sovereign? Before one can understand what a In this issue:

you are confused on whether or sovereign is, he must understand what a republic or body politic is. Rousseau describes

not you are a citizen, for I am a republic as, “The public person thus formed by the union of all other persons.” Using

here to answer that question. If what I have classified as “citizens” it is clear to see that the republic is the union of all

you live on French soil and the citizens of a nation. The republic has different roles it must fill. According to Citizens, 1 answer to the Government of Rousseau, “In its passive role it is called the state, when it plays an active role it is the Sovereignty, and France, then you are a citizen sovereign.” Therefore when the republic is active it is referred to as the sovereign.

of France. However, if you do General Will A common question that arises is where is this sovereignty invested? not consider yourself part of The sovereignty, which is made up of all the citizens of the republic, is ultimately the sovereign of France, then vested in the general will and as Rousseau claims, “Sovereignty, being nothing other you cannot be a citizen. All citizens are part of the general will and submit than the exercise of general will.” We of the National Assembly are representing the themselves to the sovereign. As Rousseau says in The Social Contract, “Those people, or supposed to at least. In this way our goal is to pass laws that are best for the Corruption at 2 who are associated in it take collectively the name a people, and call themselves general will. Since the sovereignty is invested in the general will and the prosperity of Every Turn individually citizens, in that they share the sovereign power.” A person must be the general will is in the hands of the National Assembly, it seems that some of the part of the sovereign to be a citizen. In order to be a part of the sovereign a person sovereignty is also invested in the National Assembly. If the people of France disagree must live in that sovereign’s territory and answer to its laws. Citizenship does not with the decisions of the legislature, the decision should be looked at once again by the rely on color, sex, or religious affiliation. Citizenship is rather the classification National Assembly to see if it is best suited for the general will. Now that all citizens of that members of a particular sovereign fall under. Liberté, Egalité, 3 France have voting rights, they are able to overturn decisions without the use of

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen does not violence. However, it is also possible that the people are mistaken in what they believe and Fraternité mention a person’s color in any of the articles. Why then should the slaves of the to be best for the general will. In deciding what is best for the general will, one must

French colonies not be considered citizens? They are a part of the general will just put aside all personal desires, which seems to be especially difficult for some members as the local miller or shopkeeper is. Members of the general will of France are of our current Assembly. Often times people want what is best for themselves, but what citizens of France as well. How can members of our National Assembly such as may not be best for the whole people. In theory the legislature should truly represent

Citizens Lafayette and Olympe de Gouges champion equality for women and men, the general will. In practice corrupt individuals let private desires influence their but vote against granting that same rights to black men and women? Do the slaves decisions and only seek to harm the general will. These individuals have no place in in the Caribbean not answer to the state of France? Perhaps Citizen Lafayette our National Assembly, and should be removed from it. What is harmful to one would have been happier with an amendment to the first article of The Declaration member in the sovereign is harmful to all members of the of the Rights of Man and Citizen that looked something like this, “All men are born sovereign. and remain free and equal in rights, except those who are black and are enslaved in The sovereign is as our fields.” Citizen Lafayette apparently considers himself above the former slaves Rousseau puts it, “inalienable” and “indivisible.” No of the Caribbean. This sense of superiority has no place in our National Assembly. member of the sovereign should be alienated from the A black person can perform the same function in society as a white person, as long rest. This is the reasoning behind equal citizenship. The as he is given an equal opportunity to. poor should not be alienated from the wealthy, and the

Differences in wealth should not dictate differences in black from the white. Who is to say a person is part of citizenship. A person born into a wealthy family or someone who inherits wealth is the sovereign or not? The sovereign is the republic, the not more important than every other citizen in society. Why should the amount of republic is the citizens, and the citizens are the people! property a person owns decide the rights they receive as well? A person with no The pleas from our brethren in the Caribbean needed to property is contributing just as much to the general will as a person with acres of be heard and they have been, with much dissatisfaction land. The general will does not deal with the well being of certain people, but from the Feuillants and Lafayette. Human beings do not rather the common good of all people apart of it. A large part of the population of cease being people because wealthy slave owners stand

France does not own property. Should these people be considered less a part of the to make a profit. The exploitation of the people is not in general will than property owners? Of course the answer is no. The moment the the best interest of the general will. The freedom of these general will begins dealing with the interest of a certain group, it ceases to be the people will benefit us all in the long run. We of the general will. The general will is the representation of what is best for all the people Jacobins pledge to continue to fight for the rights of the of France, regardless of wealth, color, or property. people, and the equality we of the National Assembly all

so proudly advocate. In dealing with the citizens of a nation, you are also dealing with

'Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole „

2

Corruption at Every Turn An essay on the travesty of a monarch

CITIZENS, inherently bad and that the General Will only exists and functions in “perfect world.”

For as long as I can remember Europe, and most importantly France, has been controlled by They have also argued that the crowd should not have voting rights, that slaves should corrupt and disgraceful monarchs. A monarch does not represent the General Will and completely not have voting rights, but that women should have voting rights. Their voting record, undermines the idea of citizenship and a social contract. Kings rule through absolute power, first off, is unclear and sporadic, and secondly contradicts the General Will and the through force, and by taxing the poor so that they do not possess the resources to rise up against brotherhood of politics in France. The government needs to be compiled of all of the the establishment. How are Frenchmen supposed to feel secure in their livelihood when the men of France. Representation is ineffective, and slaves need to be included along with government does not follow the will of the people? Can the common man be expected to support the crowd members and every other man (over 21) of France because they represent the a government that does not have his best interest in mind? How does the monarch justify their General Will. Women are uneducated in politics and the county and stand outside the power and wealth while the personal rights of citizens are trampled on and ignored in favor of a brotherhood of the country. The Feulliants and Lafayette are making these arguments in rich king and aristocracy? Even as a check and balance to the unicameral legislative branch a King, order to make themselves rich, support their own agenda, and retain their slaves. France as other members of the National Assembly have proposed, would compromise the General Will should ignore the impure and ridiculous notions that these people are forwarding and and corrupt the government. Not only is the King an follow the true General Will of France in the only possible manner. unnecessary component of the government, the very In addition, the French government does existence of a monarch destroys the General Will and require an executive branch, although only as a strict the basis on which a “social contract” is formed. subordinate to the General Will. The Prime Minister of

The first problem with an absolute France, as I proposed in the Constitution of 1791: monarch is its inherent disregard for the will of the Revised, should be elected by the National Assembly and people. The King always has HIS best interest in mind make decisions and appoint people to offices but only and is incapable of representing the General Will of with the check of the Assembly. All decisions must be the people. How could one man possibly make ratified by the National Assembly and the Prime Minister decisions for the entire nation of France? The King himself can be called before the legislative branch at any naturally wants to accrue wealth and power through point to check his power and he can be removed from any means necessary so his decisions are motivated by office if found to be incompetent through a “vote of no what creates the largest advantage for him, not the will of the people. Furthermore the king is only confidence” procedure. This is the only acceptable form of an executive branch. The connected to the noblemen and shares some interests with them, but could not possibly represent position is not hereditary, nor does it have a set term limit per se. The officer serves until the third estate or anyone in France besides himself and his family. The people of France require a he is found to contradict the General Will. He will consistently follow the General Will proper form of government that will protect their rights and best interest at all times. The only because of the threat of being removed for disregarding the voice of France. possible government that can accomplish these goals is a unicameral government comprised solely In conclusion monarchs only serve themselves and use the people of France, of the General Will of France, unchecked and unquestioned. and every other nation in which they exist, as a means to an end. The monarch uses the

Furthermore, a constitutional monarchy is just as hurtful towards the people of people and sucks every bit out of them in the name of wealth, fame, and power. The only

France as an absolute monarchy. The General Will needs no check, it is incorruptible and true and pure state is created through the National Assembly comprised of the General unquestionably the best representation of the will and needs of our great nation. Each citizen Will of France, in an unchecked and natural state. Only in this set up can the people feel willingly gives himself to the General Will and places the public good over their own personal safe and secure in their property and natural rights. As long as a monarch exists in France gains. There is no situation in which the General Will could harm itself and thus no check or the people will not be safe, secure, or represented in government. balance is necessary. A king can only contradict the purity of the General Will and destroy the government of France. Citizen Robespierre Lafayette and the Feulliants have continually supported the notation that people are

3

Liberté, Egalité, and Fraternité

Men of the National Assembly should all believe in liberté, egalité, and fraternité. This idea of liberty, equality, and brotherhood must be applied to all decisions of the National

Assembly. Those who oppose this are not only against the National Assembly, but against the general will. For those of you who are unaware, the “general will” refers to what is best for the people as a whole, despite all individual interests. That being said, we, the people of the National Assembly, must take into great consideration liberty, equality, brotherhood, and the general will when placing restrictions on voting and deciding on voting qualifications. It is clear to me that the best thing for France would be to have universal manhood suffrage and voting rights for the san

-culottes.

The National Assembly has recently granted voting rights to all women. My question for all who voted in favor of this is, “what happened to brotherhood?” We, the men of France, have always agreed that women have no place in political culture and now you act as if they were men. Have your wives threatened and manipulated you all? Women are biologically different from us and thus also socially different from us. Women are too different to be considered equal. We all know that they should take care of the home and the children, and maintain their role as wife and mother. Who will take the role of women in your home if we are all out voting? All things considered, there is no place for women in a political culture where all brothers are equal.

Despite the National Assembly’s inability to recognize a woman’s proper place, they do take the appropriate stance regarding slaves. The introduction of Robespierre’s constitution outlaws slavery and explicitly states that “the Declaration of the Rights of Man applies to all slaves,” thereby granting voting rights to all slaves (Robespierre). I am very glad to see that the

National Assembly has ensured that all men are free and equal. This helps to guarantee that there is universal manhood suffrage. Some people may now refute that the freeing of the slaves will result in an increase in prices of bread and even the starvation of more

Frenchmen. It is unclear if this will happen, but we must not forget that people will still work after slavery I abolished. Further- more, the National Assembly can help to control the prices of bread. Besides, to say that someone is a “slave is to assert that he is not born a man” (Rousseau 152).

At this time, you may be thinking, “If all these people get the right to vote, then they must be required to do some- thing for France!” That, however, goes against everything the social contract represents. First and foremost, everything must be agreed upon by the people before it can be enforced. This does not mean that the people of France will never vote to oblige them- selves to anything. The people of France will do what is best for the general will. Those who argue for a military conscription are foolish and ignorant. The only occasion where France would need an army would be to defend itself from invasion. If that were the case, then it would be in the best interest of the general will for everyone to service their country and fight for France. In the time of need, Frenchmen would realize that “all must now fight for their country” (Rousseau 78). Moreover, forcing a Frenchmen to serve in the military or forcing him to do anything, for that matter, would simply be slavery. Who in their right mind would enslave themselves? Granting the right to vote to all men is insurance enough that they will compel themselves to do what is right for

France.

It is difficult to say if there are any natural representatives of the people. Someone whom represents the people is not selfish, listens to the people, does not focus on their individual wishes, and genuinely represents the general will. Ideally, every member in society, as part of the general will, would possess these qualities. Therefore, the only way to decide on who represents the people would be to have a vote. Naturally, the man elected would best represent the people because the people themselves allowed him to represent them.

The people have the right to elect anyone they deem suitable. For that reason, there are no restrictions on the men that can vote and the men that can run for office. Everyone is an active voter except for those whom choose to be passive. If it is the general will that an old, poor, crippled, non-landowning man represents the people, then so be it. The people know and stand for what is best for them as a whole. The only restriction that should be placed on a voter is that he must be 21 years of age and a Frenchman. This ensures universal manhood suffrage and voting rights for the sans-culottes no matter if they own land or not.

In any vote, there is the possibility of someone disagreeing. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that “the votes of the greatest number always bind the rest” (Rousseau 153). While the National Assembly is forming our “social pact,” we must consider that when someone is in opposition to what is being formed, it “does not invalidate the contract; it merely excludes the dissentients; they are foreigners among the citizens” (Rousseau 153). In other words, personal opposition to the social contract does not void the contract, but rather makes the opposer void from being a part of the contract.

It must be reiterated one more time, that men that are of age, no matter if they own land or not, must have voting rights in order to empower the general will. Women should remain at home, while newly freed male slaves also receive the same rights as every Frenchman. The general will ensures that there is no need for a military conscription or other obligations for voters.

All of these things together will make certain that the san-culottes have voting rights and that there is universal manhood suffrage.

Citizen Jeremy