Why was there a counterrevolution or counterrevolutions? - publié le 10/07/2007

Extraits

[...] They were far more likely to compromise with revolutionaries. To put it briefly, even though the taste for immobility was diversely expressed by counterrevolutionaries, the fact remains that an ideological hatred of 1789 values was already deep- rooted. Despite this already popular range of ideas, counterrevolution chronology mainly imitates the revolutionary one, mostly because the boldness of the reforms was the main factor, at least at the beginning. As William Doyle pointed it out, the first attempt to hinder the change process may be dated 23rd June 1789, when significant royal concessions inspired by Necker (freedom of expression, the imperative consent of the General Estate as regards taxation and state loans ) triggered great expectations of reversal. [...]

[...] After the 14th of July, no attempt to slow down the rhythm of reform was possible any more: with the massacre of the governor De Launay (in charge of securing the Bastille), Counterrevolution had its first martyr. Interestingly, on the 15th the reactionary Rivarol described the Parisian crowd as “barbaric”. The emigration boost which followed, embodied by Artois, Polignac, Condé and so forth is all the more explainable that the noteworthy absence of political sanction went on during the brutal fate of the Revolution. Both the fall of the Bastille and the October days produced a tense climate which would incite many citizens to join the ranks of counterrevolution and would contribute to its diversification. [...]

[...] Therefore the obsession with security and its side-effects on the strengthening of counterrevolution should not be judged to hastily. But an unsolved problem remained: how can you define an opponent in such a fast- moving political landscape? Clearly, one of the rare consensus among Revolution historians remains its great diversity : in places, times, actors which entails that drawing the indictment of revolutionaries in 1793 is not the same than in 1789: the more the movement radicalized, as we saw, the more they excluded and labelled previous protagonists of the Revolution. [...]

[...] Why was there a counterevolution or counterevolutions? As J.C. Martin noticed, the awkward itinerary of the Comte d'Antraigues may be an outstanding example of the characteristic ambiguity of counterrevolution. After having published a scathing criticism of nobility in 1788, he turned out to be, from 1790, a strong-willed counterrevolutionary activist until he died. His puzzling metamorphosis may seem paradoxical to say the least, but it actually highlights the danger of defining counterrevolutionaries as a united category holding a grudge against any sign of advance. [...]

[...] Typically, the acquisition of “biens nationaux” appeared as a guarantee of patriotism praised by revolutionary propaganda. The meaningful language used in pamphlets portrayed counterrevolution as a Manichean betrayal of the nation, and even of the entire Humanity rather than a simple resentment of revolutionary methods and/or theories. This process of exclusion, by which revolutionaries were the only to be granted the legitimacy of the people, was very soon put into effect, but it progressively extended its hatred. Émigrés and non-jurors had obviously been the very first to be declared unworthy of citizenship, as the repressive legislation indicates: a decree dated the 9th of November 1792 required all émigrés to come back in order not to be sentenced to death, whereas two weeks later, a decree compelled every member of the clergy to pledge allegiance to the Revolution by taking the civic oath. [...]