sultan's crescent

Chapter 60 Why Do the People Need Judgment (Two Chapters in One)

The mob in Paris is not a bunch of bullies, or they have always been the only ones who bully others.
Roland's behavior aroused great disgust among the people of Paris, but after this incident, Roland seemed to have lost his mind.

Not only did he not punish the Viscount Noaille, nor did he further punish the king, but persuaded people to let go of their hatred.

In fact, Roland had no choice but to, the royalists had already controlled Lyon, the second largest city in France.

He could ignore Leopold II's statement, but the oppression of the royalists was real.

Since the Great Revolution, many officers have defected from the army. This not only weakens the army's combat power, but also increases the possibility of mutiny in the army. After all, these defectors are both nobles and old leaders of the soldiers.

In this case, Roland certainly wanted to depose Louis XVI, but he couldn't do so.

As the leader of the National Constituent Assembly, once he made a move, he was destined to suffer a counterattack from the Royalists.

And that's what Roland couldn't accept, so he took a foolish method that he thought was perfect--extending the frame.

Taking advantage of Roland's lack of attention, Robespierre began to call on the Jacobins to give speeches at the Champ de Mars every day.

He wants to bake the Girondist pie over the fire.

The "Incorruptible", as the leader of the Jacobin party, was naturally the first speaker.

On the afternoon of January 1790, 27, at the Champ de Mars, Robespierre began his speech.

"Citizens, without knowing it, the Convention has been misled far from the real problem.

Who are the misleaders? I don't want to list them here, because I hope they can repent and join the ranks of the revolution again.

I'm not doing any judgment here either.

Louis is not a defendant, and you are not judges.

Yes, you are not judges, you are nothing but representatives of the people and politicians.

What you have in your hands is by no means a judgment in favor or against a certain person, but a means to realize the salvation of France, an action to realize the wishes of the French people.

Why hasn't the king abdicated when we've had a revolution?Why is the Republic still only on the lips of some people?
Obviously the king has made many mistakes. He used force to suppress the people; he colluded with foreign tyrants; he sold the interests of the country for the throne; fled privately.
But as for us, the people of France just forgive him again and again, are deceived by him again and again, and are ridiculed by him in his heart that France is almost all fools, and no one dares to punish him.

In that case, shall we keep the king?

Shall we continue to keep him until the so-called allied forces of the Holy Roman Emperor Leopold come to Paris and tell all the French that you must continue to bear his oppression.

People of France, your fate, the future of France, is for you to decide. "

As soon as Robespierre finished speaking, the crowd in the square shouted fiercely.

"He is no longer worthy to be king of France!"

"This bastard should be deported, he is not welcome in France!"

"Abolish him, abolish him, France needs to move towards a republic!"

People's voices were louder and louder, watching the scene of people's excitement.

Robespierre raised his hand, and the people gradually became quiet again.

"Ladies and gentlemen, please hear me out.

Our original intention, or the original intention of all revolutionaries, out of reverence for the king, our original ideal is really nothing but to abolish him.

But Roland did nothing, when the king's secrets were repeatedly exposed, when the king fled at will, and when the king colluded with the tyrant.

Roland just stood there, watching the people being bullied by the king.

But we should also be thankful that Roland's behavior made me fully understand the essence of the so-called king's abdication. He can reset at any time, as long as there is someone like Roland to support him.

An abdicated and reinstated king can only be used in two cases: either to endanger the stability of the regime or to threaten liberty, or to achieve both ends.

I now firmly believe that the enthusiasm you have had so far will, in essence, run counter to that goal.

In fact, Roland's policies are blocking a resolution that would have strengthened the fledgling republic.

What is the resolution?It is to engrave upon the hearts of the people a disdain for the monarchy, and to leave all royalists stunned.

Therefore, in order to make his crime known to the world; in order to regard his trial as perhaps the most impressive, the most sacred and the most difficult resolution in the hearts of the representatives of the French people; An insurmountable gulf was drawn between the dignity enjoyed by citizens.

We should just realize that keeping him would be a great threat to freedom.

Louis should no longer be a king, a republic must be established, and all your discussions should be premised on this.

No one took the throne from Louis.

Louis lost his throne for his crimes—declaring the French people rebels, and thus summoning the arms of his collaborating tyrants.

However, the attitude of the French people and all European sympathizers to the revolution showed that Louis was the rebel.

Therefore there was no trial against Louis—how could the birth of the Republic be acquitted without admitting that Louis was already guilty? (note the principle of the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, represented during the French Revolution), the trial of Louis - no matter how it ends - will mean that it is legal to return the present country to monarchy and tyranny era.

The idea that Louis should be tried was counter-revolutionary because it meant the revolution was brought to the forefront of controversy.

In fact, if Louis were to be tried, there would be the possibility of acquitting him.

See what I'm saying, "he's probably not guilty"!And until the end of the trial, he will have to be presumed innocent.

But if Louis was acquitted, or, to put it back, assuming he could be presumed innocent, what would our revolution be?
If Louis is innocent, then all defenders of liberty are slanderers; then royalist rebels are friends of truth, protectors of the "repressed innocent"; All the judgments of the royal court have become a legal attack on a "small group of usurpers";

Then even the detention of Louis so far has become an unfair persecution.

Then the people of Paris, and all the other patriots of France, are also guilty.

Moreover, in the courts of natural law, is it not already partiality to crime and tyranny to make crime and virtue, liberty and tyranny, stand in court in this way?

Citizens, please be aware that you have now been misled by some false propositions given by counter-revolutionaries mixed with revolutionaries.

You are confusing the relationship between citizens with that between the nation as a whole and a conspiratorial public enemy; you are confusing a man's place in a revolution with that man's place in a stable regime; you are confusing Confuse the punishment of a public official who defends the regime by the whole nation with the punishment of a person who just wants to destroy the regime.

Faced with an exceptional situation that we have never seen before, we are still using the concepts we are familiar with but only applicable to general situations to understand.Because we are used to dealing with the usual principles for the usual illegal activities.

We are therefore naturally inclined to think that it is impossible for the state to justly punish a person who violates the rights of citizens if other principles are used; , there is no justice.

These symbolic words, in the end, mislead us.

Such is the result of allowing habit to influence our thinking: the most random assemblies, and sometimes the most flawed organisations, are treated by us as absolute means of measuring truth and falsehood, justice and injustice.

We don't even realize that most of these beliefs are related to the prejudices imposed on us by tyranny.

We have been so long succumbed to the yoke of tyranny that we have difficulty even bringing ourselves to identify with the eternal principles of justice, that anything connected with the divine principles of jurisprudence seems illegitimate, and the true order of nature is regarded as illegitimate. disorderly chaos.

The solemn actions of the people, the sublime devotion to virtue, seem to us, to our cowardly minds, the eruption of a volcano or the collapse of society.

What we look forward to is the rule of freedom, which requires pure ideas and spirits, which have irreconcilable contradictions with our moral weakness and depravity in ideas.

And this is by no means a small problem.

When the people are compelled to appeal to their right to riot, the tyrant reverts to his true colors.

How can a tyrant sign a social contract?Tyrants only break contracts.

And that's exactly what Louis is doing and has done.

On the contrary, the people will retain the content of the social contract regarding the relationship between citizens if they see fit.

But for the content about the monarch, due to the relationship between tyranny and revolution, it is all invalid.

Tyranny and people's revolution are states of war, and courts and legal procedures apply only to one side of the two.

How can we use the weapon that protects the people to maintain the authority of a tyrant? Isn't this a blasphemy against the law?

Axiom-based justice fades when it is misapplied.

And it would be a huge fallacy to think that constitutionalism can continue to apply under today's new order, that is, it is assuming that constitutionalism can exist naturally.

So what kind of legal system will replace constitutionalism?

It is the basis for the existence of society - natural law, and it is also the savior of the people.

The right to punish a tyrant is really the same thing as the right to abolish his kingship.

Both manifest in the same form.A revolution is a trial of a tyrant, and the collapse of the tyrant's power is the climax of this trial.

Final judgment is all that the liberty of the people demands.

The way people and courts pass judgment is different.

The people did not read the verdict, but set off a revolutionary movement vigorously; the people did not condemn the king, but threw the royal power into nothingness.The justice of the people is as valuable as a court of law.

If the people took up arms against their oppressors in order to save themselves, how could they accept a new threat as punishment for their uprising?

We are already allowing foreign cases that have nothing to do with any of this to mislead us.

Cromwell tried Charles I by means of a judicial council controlled by him; Elizabeth I did the same with Mary I.

It is evident that these tyrants sacrificed their servants not for the sake of the people, but for their own ambitions, seeking to mislead the masses with an illusion.

Absolute justice belongs to liberty and principle, not to fraud and conspiracy.

So for the people, if the justice and axioms governed by their own absolute power are discarded, is there any other legal principle to follow?
How can there be disputes about whether it is legal or not to punish a tyrant?

Does anyone still invite Tarquin (the last king before the city of Rome entered the republic era) to be judged?

If the Romans claimed to defend Tarquin back then, what would have happened to Rome?
And what are we doing?We are looking for lawyers from all directions to defend Louis XVI against his crimes!
This is exactly what someone is good at. This revolutionary betrayer wants to leave a way out for himself, but he doesn't know that his behavior is simply rebellious and rebellious.

With such a head and two ends, the revolutionaries will spurn it in the future, and the royalists will not take it in, and its end will come.

It makes us regard the trial of Louis XVI as a legitimate matter, which is a heinous crime in the eyes of any free people.

We are literally letting the people down.

It is very likely that we will someday reward the defenders of Louis XVI as "civil guards"; after all, once they are allowed to defend, there is a possibility of successful defense.

Otherwise, you are showing the world a ridiculous word game
.If so, what qualifications do we have to say that we want to establish a republic!

We propose various forms because we have no principles; we pride ourselves on our tact because we have no strength; Because we don't know how to respect people; we are so gentle to the oppressors because we are ruthless to the oppressed.

Wake up, people of France, we should stop hesitating, and stop living in the lies fabricated by the oppressors.

Is what we are after now the abolition of the king?

No, not at all, we want to execute him, we want to make a final break with the old system!

We want France to move toward a republic, toward the future!

Thank you all, this concludes my speech. "

"The Incorruptible" apologized and took off his top hat.

The crowd erupted into fierce shouts, and after Robespierre's speech, the cauldron of Paris boiled even more.

　This chapter is two in one.

　　In fact, I have always liked Robespierre very much, but I can't understand why he would use the Reign of Terror at the end with strict logic.

　　Perhaps in that era, no one could do anything.

　　
　
(End of this chapter)