But could a nation of 25,000,000 be thus transformed? To the regenerators of France it seemed extremely doubtful; already the country was rent with dissensions, and any scheme for universal contentment seemed impossible of attainment. Moreover, the plan of dividing things up into equal shares presented an insuperable difficulty, for it became evident that amongst a population of this size there was not enough money, not enough property, not enough employment, not even at this moment enough bread to go round; no one would be satisfied with his share, and instead of universal contentment, universal dissatisfaction would result. What was to be done? The population was too large for the scheme of the leaders to be carried out successfully, therefore either the scheme must be abandoned or
the population must he diminished.
To this conclusion the surgeons operating on the State had at last been brought. In vain they had amputated the gangrened limb of the nobility and the clergy, had paralysed the brain by attacking the intellectual classes, had turned (as in Aesop's fable) upon the stomach, that is to say, the industrial system, by which the whole body of the State was fed, and denied it sustenance--all these means to restore health to the State had failed, and they were now reduced to a last and desperate expedient: the size of the whole body must be reduced. In other words,
a plan of systematic depopulation must be carried out all over France.
That this idea, worthy of a mad Procrustes, really existed it is impossible to doubt, since it has been revealed to us by innumerable revolutionaries who were behind the scenes during the Terror. Thus Courtois, in his report on the papers seized at Robespierre's house after Thermidor, wrote: "These men, in order to bring us to the happiness of Sparta, wished
to annihilate twelve or fifteen millions of the French people, and hoped after this revolutionary transfiguration to distribute to each one a plough and some land to clear, so as to save us from the dangers of the happiness of Persepolis."
Another intime of Robespierre, the Marquis d'Antonelle, a member of the Revolutionary Tribunal, actually explained the whole scheme in print whilst the Terror was at its height. Beaulieu, who met him in prison, where he was incarcerated by Robespierre for giving away the secret of the leaders, thus describes the system as revealed to him by D'Antonelle: "He thought, like the greater number of the revolutionary clubs, that, in order to institute the Republic on the ruins of the monarchy, it was necessary to exterminate all those who preferred the latter form of government, and that the former could only become democratic by the destruction of luxury and riches, which form the support of royalty; that equality would never be anything but a chimera as long as men did not all enjoy approximately equal properties; and finally, that such an order of things could never be established until
a third of the population had been suppressed; this was the general idea of the fanatics of the Revolution."
About two years later, that is to say in 1795, the Socialist, Gracchus Babeuf, employed at the Commune, gave a more detailed account of the scheme in his brochure, "Sur le Systme de la Depopulation, ou La Vie et les Crimes de Carrier." Of this system Babeuf declares that Robespierre was the principal author: "Maximilien and his council had calculated that a real regeneration of France could only be operated by means of a new distribution of territory and of the men who occupied it"; and he goes on to show the remorseless logic by which Robespierre reached his final conclusion: "He thought that, firstly, in the present state of things property had fallen into a few hands, and that the great majority of the French possessed nothing ; secondly, that in allowing this state of things to continue, equality of rights would only be a vain word in spite of which the aristocracy of owners of property would always be real, the smaller number would always tyrannize over the great mass, the majority would always be the slave of the minority . . . ; thirdly, that in order to destroy this power of the owners of property, and to take the mass of citizens out of their dependence, there was no way but to place all property in the hands of the government ; fourthly, that one could succeed without doubt only by immolating the great proprietors . . . ; fifthly, that, besides this,
depopulation was indispensable, because the calculation had been made that the French population was in excess of the resources of the soil and of the requirements of useful industry, that is to say, that, with us, men jostled each other too much for each to be able to live at ease ; that hands were too numerous for the execution of all works of essential utility . . . ; sixthly, finally--and this is the horrible conclusion--that since the superabundant population could only amount to so much ... a portion of
sans-culottes must be sacrificed, that this rubbish could be cleared away up to a certain quantity, and that means must be found for doing it."
To this necessity Babeuf attributes not only the guillotinades, fusillades, and noyades in the provinces, but also the engineered famine to which he had drawn attention earlier, whilst the war, far from providing a reason for the Terror, was in reality part of the scheme of extermination. "What," he asks, "is this plan of eternal crusades, of repulsing peace, of universal conquest, of the conversion or subjugation of all kings and all peoples, if it is not the hidden intention to prevent any one coming back from amongst that important portion of the nation that armed itself so generously in order to chase the enemy from French territory?"
The evidence of Babeuf is the more valuable since he declares himself to be heartily in agreement with the Socialistic schemes of Robespierre; it is only the means employed to realize them that he disapproves. "On the subject of extermination," he naively concludes, "I am a man of prejudices; it is not given to every one to rise to the heights of Maximilien Robespierre." But later on he came to see that Robespierre's plan alone could ensure success, and that if absolute equality was to be achieved the Terror must be revived. It was for the attempt to reinstate the regime of Robespierre that Babeuf finally met his end. However preposterous the
exposé of Babeuf may seem, we must admit that it is the only one that explains the Terror. Moreover, that this was indeed the system on which it was founded does not rest on the authority of Courtois, Babeuf, and D'Antonelle alone, the very words "plan of depopulation" occur repeatedly in the writings and speeches of other contemporaries. Thus Prudhomme, in describing the massacres of September, explains the enormous proportion of "the people" amongst the victims as the first evidence of this scheme: "The plan of butchery did not end with the destruction of priests and nobles . . . but from that date there existed
a plan of depopulation conceived by Marat, Robespierre . . ., etc., and this is what the method of the Terror has proved."
Later on, at the trials of Fouquier Tinville and Carrier, several witnesses referred to the same scheme: Grandpre of the police declared that the most powerful means employed by Robespierre was "a vast system of depopulation"; Ardenne, Deputy Public Accuser, said the plan was "to clear out the prisons in order to
depopulate France," and in his summing up to the president and judges of the Revolutionary Tribunal stated that "Robespierre, St. Just, Couthon, and others, had expected
to depopulate France, and above all to make genius, talents, honour, and industry to disappear"; Trinchard, member of the Revolutionary Tribunal, ended his evidence with the words: "Such was the system of depopulation organized by the last tyrants, and in order to make sure of its execution they employed the most immoral men" indeed. Carrier himself admitted that " this plan of destruction existed." Carrier, Fouquier, Freron, Lebon, and the other monsters were therefore only acting on orders from headquarters when they set out to decimate Paris and the provinces, and the terrible phrase of Carrier, "Let us make a cemetery of France rather than not regenerate her after our manner," simply epitomized the philosophy of Robespierre on which the system of the Comité de Salut Public was founded. . . .
The precise proportion of the population it would be necessary to suppress formed the subject of can mathematical calculation amongst the leaders. According to Larevelliere Lepeaux, it was Jean Bon St. Andre who first openly admitted the existence of the scheme, and at the time that the Revolutionary Tribunal was instituted--that is to say, in the spring of 1793--declared in the tribune of the Convention that "in order to establish the Republic securely in France, the population must be reduced by more than half." Beside this estimate D'Antonelle's proposal to reduce by one-third only seems comparatively moderate.
Other leading revolutionaries considered, however, that far more drastic measures were necessary; thus Collot d'Herbois held that twelve to fifteen millions of the French must be destroyed, Carrier declared that the nation must be reduced to six millions, Guffroy in his journal expressed the opinion that only five million people should be allowed to survive, whilst Robespierre was reported to have said that a population of two millions would be more than enough. Pagès and Fantin Desodoards assert, however, that eight millions was the figure generally agreed on by the leaders.'
The plan of the Terrorists was not, therefore, as is popularly supposed, to sacrifice a small minority for the happiness of the great majority, but to annihilate an immense proportion of the nation in order to ensure a contented residuum. Such, then, was the system of the Terror, and however atrocious it may appear we must admit that it was founded on a perfectly logical premise--the conviction that the smaller the population the better for democracy.
Such, then, was the system of the Terror, and however atrocious it may appear we must admit that it was founded on a perfectly logical premise--the conviction that the smaller the population the better for democracy
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Swordsmyth
Connect With Us