GOVERMENT BY DOUBT: SAINT-JUST'S MISTRUST OF THE PEOPLE

"The weeds... cut away. Louis Antoine, don't you see, those weeds are living men and women?"
-Tanith Lee, The Gods Are Thirsty

            In his role of leadership as a member of the Committee of Public Safety during the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution, Louis Antoine Saint-Just demonstrated a hypocritical attitude towards "the people" of France, the Third Estate who the Revolution was meant to empower.  Displaying character traits more commonly attributed to Robespierre, Saint-Just showed an inherent mistrust of the people, which underlaid his belief in their sovereignty.  This is particularly evident in his reports to the Convention calling for the death Louis XVI, and later that of Georges Danton.

            This strange attitude can be partially explained by the Robespierrists' interpretation of "the people."  As R.R. Palmer explains, "They lived by faith and hope; they meant by the 'people' something higher and nobler than the people they saw. . . ." [1]  The real citizens of France did not, and could not ever live up to the high standards Robespierre and Saint-Just set for them.  Robespierre stated, "The only citizens in the Republic are the republicans.  Royalists and conspirators are foreigners, or rather enemies, in its eyes."[2]  Therefore, whoever wasn't a republican-- in other words, whoever didn't follow Robespierre-- had no rights as a French citizen.  Saint-Just himself, when introducing to the Convention the revolutionary government that was to control France until the war was over, said, "Since the French people has manifested its will, everything opposed to it is outside the sovereign.  Whatever is outside the sovereign is an enemy."[3][4]  The will of which he spoke is Rousseau's "General Will," which, while being the will of the people, may not be the will of all, or even the majority of the people.  Instead it is the will for what is considered to be the best, most honest, and truest course of action-- apparently as decided by whoever is the governing body.  Any person whose will differs from the General Will is considered not to be a citizen, or in Robespierre's terms, not a republican and therefore an enemy.

            A prime example of such an outlaw was the king, Louis XVI.  Saint-Just's first report to the Convention, on November 13, 1792 demonstrates this, and also that Saint-Just did value "the people," by denying Louis XVI a place among them.  A few days earlier, on November 7, Jean-Baptiste Maihle had spoken for the Committee on Legislation, which had been assigned the task of deciding if the king could be put on trial for his supposed crimes.[5]  In his own speech, Saint-Just vows to prove that the findings of the Committee are false. "The single aim of the committee was to persuade you that the king should be judged as an ordinary citizen.  And I say that the king should be judged as an enemy. . . ."[6]  Saint-Just believes that the king is less than a citizen, as he explains near the end of the speech.  "Louis is an alien among us," Saint-Just contends, and not a citizen because as king "he had no suffrage, he could not bear arms"[7] and because he failed in his duty to protect the citizens of France .

            Saint-Just deals quickly with the question of Louis' guilt: he is guilty, not so much because of his particular actions, but simply because he is a former king.  ". . .[A] king should be accused, not for the crimes of his administration, but for the crime of having been king, as that is an usurpation which nothing on earth can justify."[8]  And in what is arguably the most famous sentence he ever spoke, Saint-Just says simply, "On ne peut point régner innocemment"[9]-- "One cannot reign innocently."

            Thus having established the king's guilt, Saint-Just sets about describing the methods by which Louis is to be judged.  It is here that he attempts to demonstrate the value he places on the people; yet he also reveals his lack of faith in them.  Saint-Just declares, "Citizens, the tribunal which ought to judge Louis is not a judiciary tribunal: it is a council: it is the people; it is you."[10]  However, he makes almost hypocritical remarks at the end of his speech.  First he states that it is "not necessary" for the people of France to sanction the execution of the king, as opposed to the Girondin view that the people vote on the Convention's verdict before it is carried out.[11]  "The people can pass laws by its will. . ." Saint-Just claims, "but the people itself can not erase the laws against tyranny. . . ."[12]   Yet a sentence later, he says, "If the majority of you decide to absolve him, then that verdict must be ratified by the people, for if no act of the sovereign [here referring to the body of the French people] can truly constrain a single citizen to pardon the king, how much the less can an act of the magistrate constrain the sovereign!"[13]  In other words, if the Convention decides to execute the king, they do not need the people's approval; but if they decide to pardon Louis, they must have the people's approval.  Even though Saint-Just wishes to place power in the hands of the citizens of France (or at least, to give the appearance that he believes in the people), he does not trust them to deal with the king as he sees fit.

            According to Saint-Just’s biographers J.B. Morton and Geoffrey Bruun, Saint-Just’s speech was impressive to the Convention, both because of its content and Saint-Just’s unusually handsome physical appearance.  His delivery too was striking, particularly the single gesture he made throughout the speech: "the right hand lifted and then dropped to his side like the mechanical action of a falling blade."[14]  Reactions to the speech were varied, with some members of the Convention feeling that Saint-Just's recommendations were too drastic, and others agreeing with him.  Either way, he became well known before his next speech on the former king, on December 27.[15]

            The previous day, Louis Capet had given his defense, including his famous claim, which Saint-Just quoted as "I was master then; I did what seemed right to me."[16]  Saint-Just addresses this claim briefly in his own speech, again invoking the people of France in his statement that the king had "affected disinterest and love" of them while secretly plotting against them.  "He did all the ill he could, undiscerned by the people; and he did it pretending to respect the new laws which he sought to make detested."[17]  However, the crux of Saint-Just's speech is the need to end delays in the trial, and particularly the need to condemn Louis without the vote of the people for which the Girondins still called.  As in his first speech, Saint-Just simultaneously exalts and mistrusts the people, making them appear both sacred and foolish, majestic in their love and inherent goodness, yet easily duped by Louis because of this love.  "The people, generous to the last, would not themselves pass judgment on their enemy."[18]

            Saint-Just addresses the issue of allowing an appeal to the people concisely:

Defenders of the king, what would you require of us?  If he is innocent, the nation is guilty.  We must respond in full, for the form of the question accuses the people.  I have heard talk of an appeal to the people of the verdict which the people itself will pronounce through our mouth.  Citizens, if you permit an appeal to the people, you will be saying to them, "the guilt of your murderer is in doubt."[19]

Saint-Just hides his lack of faith in the people by claiming that an appeal to them would be insulting.  A few sentences later, he also states that the people do not wish to make the decision themselves, instead wanting a "council" to judge the king.[20]

            Saint-Just's strategy worked.  According to Bruun, "It had appeared to the good citizens that their drama was in danger of being extinguished in the provincial ballot boxes, while their royal victim escaped them."[21]  Saint-Just's speech was wildly applauded, and when the voting that would decide Louis' fate began on January 15, his desires came to pass.  The king was found guilty by a unanimous vote, and the appeal to the people was rejected 424 to 283.  The next day, voting was held to determine the penalty for Louis' crimes.[22]  Even in his vote Saint-Just stressed the importance of the people of France: "Because Louis XVI was the enemy of the people, of its liberty and its happiness, I conclude for death."[23]  387 members of the Convention had voted for death; 334 had not.  Several hours were spent after the voting as appeals were made, and on the 18th the Girondins again tried to gain an appeal to the people, but Louis Capet was executed on January 21, 1793.

            The balance of respect for and mistrust of the people influenced Saint-Just's stance in another trial over a year later.  After the arrest and execution of Hébert and his followers for their extremism, the Committee of Public Safety turned against the Dantonists.  Georges Danton was a member of the Convention; he was well-liked and had at one time tried to reconcile the Girondins and Jacobins.  That act now provided fuel for the Committee's claims that he was guilty of the "crime" of moderation.[24]  This moderation involved toning down the Terror, and creating a republic unlike that of the Robespierrists, where all citizens save the extreme radicals would work together, chiefly by avoiding argument over their differing principles.[25]  Danton was in reality more dangerous to the Committee than to the Republic, for his faction was rival to theirs in popularity.  He especially seemed a direct contrast to Robespierre; as R.R. Palmer states, "Danton liked people; only the people could touch the feelings of Robespierre."[26]  This opinion of Robespierre's is reflected by Saint-Just in his report on March 31, 1794.

            Every historian seems to have his or her own opinion on Saint-Just's role in the drafting of this report.  Palmer takes the stance that Robespierre was hesitant to condemn Danton, but was persuaded by his "fiercer colleagues" to do so.  Saint-Just then "eagerly" wrote the draft of the report, and Robespierre corrected "one or two of Saint-Just's wilder claims" and added his own notes.  A few changes were then made by the Committee.[27]  J.B. Morton,[28] however, claims that while Saint-Just believed that the Dantonists must be executed, Robespierre decided on his own to arrest Danton, mostly because Danton "had always laughed at him."  Robespierre gave Saint-Just "jottings" on which to base his report, which condemned Danton for his attempts at reconciling the Girondins and the Jacobins, for military blunders, and for mocking the concept of vertu.[29]  According to Morton, "Saint-Just, in reading this nonsense, must have been ready to do violence to his own feelings for the sake of the end he had in view."[30]  In his own biography of Saint-Just, Norman Hampson takes the middle road, stating that Saint-Just wrote a "hasty report" which was "enlarged into a whole dossier of 'evidence'" by Robespierre.  Hampson claims that the changes made to Robespierre's notes were written by Saint-Just alone.  "He did not hesitate to twist Robespierre's text when it looked as though it might have the wrong effect."[31]

            Although Morton does not discuss the arrest warrant for Danton and his followers signed by the Committees of Public Safety and General Security on March 30, Palmer and Hampson again present different versions of the events.  Palmer writes that Saint-Just and Robespierre both wanted Danton to be arrested after Saint-Just read the report.  "They wished Danton to be present, scorning, apparently, to seem afraid."[32]  Hampson claims that only Saint-Just wanted Danton to be present while he read the report, and while Robespierre at first agreed, he changed his mind.[33]  In either case, the majority of those present wanted to arrest Danton without giving him the warning of the report.  The only fact on which everyone seems to agree is that Saint-Just was annoyed by this decision, and threw his hat into the fire.

            Saint-Just read the report to the Convention the next day, on March 31.  In reflection of his and Robespierre's desire to arrest Danton after it had been read, the report is addressed to Danton and written in second person; the charges against Danton are summed up in a single sentence: "Danton, you served tyranny."[34]  There is little real evidence of this presented in the report, with most of the charges based on Danton's alleged sympathies with those already condemned.  For instance, Danton is supposed to have "received" compliments from Brissot, and  replied to Brissot, "You have the spirit, but you have pretensions."  To this "crime," Saint-Just sarcastically replies, "There is your indignation against the enemies of the patrie!"[35]  Danton is also accused of saying that he didn't like Marat, and of being a "false friend" to Camille Desmoulins, who ironically was also on trial: ". . . false friend, you spoke two days ago of the evil of Desmoulins. . . you accused him of shameful defects."[36]  Saint-Just was a skilled enough orator to make these sundry claims seem like evidence, and the decree of accusation against Danton was approved unanimously.[37]

            The situation surrounding Saint-Just's report and the trial of Danton is similar to that of the king's trial in 1793.  In both cases, Saint-Just did not trust the public to administer the "correct" verdict of guilty.  As with his speeches on Louis XVI, Saint-Just glorified the people in his report-- "Danton, are you not criminally responsible for not having hated the enemies of the people enough?"[38]  But also as with the former king, if the public had a say in Danton's fate-- or even if he were given a fair trial-- he might have been acquitted.[39]  There was one other similarity between the speeches calling for the deaths of Louis and Danton: again, Saint-Just's only gesture was the rise and fall of his hand, like the blade of the guillotine.[40]

            Saint-Just's mistrust of the public was almost justified during Danton's trial.  Danton protested vigorously throughout the trial, gaining the sympathy of the people and impressing the jury; he also demanded witnesses.[41]  If Danton continued to be heard, he would be acquitted.  The public prosecutor, Fouquier-Tinville, sent a message to the Committee complaining of Danton's demand for witnesses.  Saint-Just then went to the Convention and pretended to read Fouquier's note, but instead read a creation of his own which stated that the accused prisoners were revolting, and the trial had to be suspended until the Convention prevented their interference: "The public prosecutor of the Revolutionary Tribunal informed us that the revolt of the culprits has suspended the debates of justice until the Convention has decreed."[42]  Once more Saint-Just stresses the prisoners' "crime" against the people, claiming it is they "who conspired for the unhappiness and slavery of the people."[43]  Saint-Just proposes that the Revolutionary Tribunal continue the trial, and that the president of the Tribunal employ "all the means that he is given respecting his authority" to prevent the accused from interrupting the proceedings.[44]  The decree was adopted unanimously, thus silencing Danton, and the trial continued.  The verdict of guilty was pronounced without Danton present, and he was executed the same day.

            Saint-Just was not alone in his mistrust and lack of understanding; Palmer writes, "Saint-Just, like most other middle-class leaders of the Revolution, had almost no real knowledge of the problems of working class people.  He saw an undifferentiated mass of indigent patriots. . . ."[45]  Nevertheless, it was not so much the people of France who turned on him and Robespierre, but his fellow members of the Committee and Convention.  Ferenc Feher notes, "It was an ironic and terrible twist of history that, of all the regime's sham trials, the one most lacking in legal formalities, the one utterly without even the appearance of justice, and therefore the most revolutionary in Saint-Just's sense, was the Thermidorian 'trial' to which Robespierre, Saint-Just, and the leadership of their party were subjected."[46]  Saint-Just, Robespierre, his brother Augustin, Couthon, and Saint-Just's friend LeBas were arrested in the Convention after Saint-Just had tried to give a final speech and was prevented.  It was meant to be a report to the Convention, examined first by the Committees of Public Safety and General Security.  Saint-Just had left the committees early that morning (July 27, 1794) under the premise that he would finish his report and return at eleven to have it approved.[47]  Instead, he went to Robespierre, and the speech he gave in the Convention was his own.  He appealed to the Convention, "[T]his very night someone has stricken me to the heart, and I wish to speak only to you."[48]  But the Convention would not listen any more, and Saint-Just did not receive the trial he had wished to deny Louis XVI and Danton.  He was executed on July 29 in front of the people he had claimed to love but could not trust.