revolution_fr | Monthly Discussion Point: The Committee of Public Safety

OMSB~ SOME CSP LUV~

I swear I can contribute to this immensely... and more than the previous statement and the icon just showed.

YES~ I was inspired to pick this when I was ~~procrastinating on studying for my midterm by~~ looking through some older entries and found your The Nine Other Members of the Committee of Public Safety (http://community.livejournal.com/revolution_fr/33657.html) post, actually. :D

I love that icon so much. Hee.

So, how close were those famous cots in the corner? Did anyone ever wake up accidentally snuggling someone else? *innocent grin*

Okay, okay, maybe that's not the most serious of discussion points. Can someone tell me exactly how the powers were divided? I know certain ones focused on certain aspects (Lindet was, I think, finance...?), and others were more general (Robespierre), who was what?

Also, in an AU sort of angle, what do you think would have changed if the composition of the Committee was different? Is there any possible addition or subtraction that would have made things less fractious, or at the very least less likely to end up in 9 Thermidor?

Haha... Well, sex and politics are pretty hard to separate sometimes, but I've slept on cots before, and you deserve some sort of prize if you can get a decent night's sleep on a cot with two people. lol
I wonder if perhaps if there had been a few more moderate leftists allied with R-and-friends that things probably would've gone over a bit better? I mean, R/C/SJ certainly weren't the most rabid liberals of their day, but I really think that having some of the more middle-of-the-liners like the Dantonists (er.. assuming they were still kickin') would have at least partly bridged some of the gaps.
Besides, I get the feeling that Danton and SJ were probably the best orators of the time, and SJ was too close to Robespierre to put up what someone could consider an unbiased defense on his behalf... I think that having someone at least slightly politically different to come to R's defense probably would've helped during Thermidor.

Sorry for hair-splitting, but it can be tricky to use the word "liberal" as a synonym of "leftist". Because actually one may agrue that Dantonists were more of "liberals" and by that meaning that they were actually on the RIGHT of Robespierristes. Sorry, just to be precise....
Wasn't Barère considered the best orator of the CPS?

Ohh, like.. Were the Robespierrists so far left that they were edging into socialism/communism-esque territory, and so not considered quite as 'liberal' as the Dantonists? (lols, where I'm from the people tend to think of anyone left-of-center as witch-craft practicing communists, so I suppose I've got something of a political dichotomy where there ought to be a spectrum!)

Hm.. The orator bit was me thinking of people that would have been likely to tilt Thermidor in the opposite direction, and SJ and Danton were the first people I thought of that were really eloquent and likely to come to the Robespierrists' aid *had he still been alive..* (SJ not even being a real option for this since he was a Robespierrist himself...) But yeah, I think you're right about Barere being thought the best orator on the CPS (idk that much about him). :)

I think there is a serious misunderstaning here. When I use "liberal" for the European history, I use it in the sense of adherence to what can be defined as principles outlined by Adam Smith, basing myself on 19th century European concepts. I think the problem is that you apply American politological terms to European history. When in European history one speaks about "liberals", one has Smith in mind, rather then "Left". Though liberals were indeed a "Left" during the great part of the 19th century, here I agree, left to the supporters of absolute monarchy or of only a partial sovereignity of the people (sharing it with the king). Because, unlike in the USA, that is what there existed in Europe on the right of the political spectrum. But that does not mean that more you are "smith-like", more left you are, because there were other streams of political thought further left.That's why the application of 21st-century US political vocabulary might be tricky and misguiding. (BTW, in today's Germany, conservatives an liberals are the RIGHT, while the main left party is neither socialist nor communist, but a SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, a term you don't use often in the USA, as far as it seems to me)
I never said Robespierristes were edging with socialism.
Robespierristes and Dantonistes were supporters of the basic principle of untouchability of private property and opposed aristocratic privilege and in this sense, they were both liberal in the 19th century sense of the word. In general, there was not a big ideological difference between the two. Nevertheless, Robespierristes were a bit less "liberal" in that smithian sense, as they were ready to impose restrictions on private property for patriotic reasons while Danton and the people who supported him were more hesitating in this respect.

I believe we do as well... I suppose my virtually nonexistent knowledge of continental Europe's political philosophies and systems is to blame for my phrasing, which has been entirely American (at the moment I'm not even going to try to use or pretend I know any of the European terms, because that would end in catastrophe).

In the current political climate here, from left to right, the main political schools of thought go something like Communism< Socialism< Liberal< Moderate< Conservative< Anarchist, and any mention of price-caps, monitoring the market for monopolies, keeping up the indigent with government funds, or appropriation of private property for any reason really, will generally brand someone as having socialist-sympathies to the general public (Just look at what happened to Obama's health-care plan). I never said you said the Robespierrists were edging with socialism; I was asking if that was what you meant, because I didn't understand the system you were referring to, and I wasn't sure how to interpret what you had said.

I should probably look up Smith sometime..

BTW, as for the free market as a sacred principle: as for international trade, USA was throughout the history a regulating, protectionist country, protecting her national producers by very high tolls, independently of who was in government at the moment ;-)

Adam Smith is considered the greatest theorician of liberalism, besides other things: the untouchability of private property, the benefits of self-regulating free market etc.Not very left in the 20th century European sense, though yes, in the 19th century, radical liberals were during decades on the Left( as freedom of trade and property were consiere a leftie agena, as well as freedom of speech and press and education). Messy, I know.

Haha, I know, but I never said we practiced what we preached. (I mean, hell we're against concentration camps and genocide, but we put the Japanese into concentration camps out west during WWII, and we put Jackson on our $20 bill).
But the biggest part of the general public doesn't look at the U.S.'s regulating of international trade so much as internal regulation, and that's what plays the biggest role in elections here.

Wow... That is kind of complicated. I've actually looked some stuff up about that, and I'm finding it really interesting. It's a totally new way of looking at political issues compared to what I'm used to!

Great, I am happy my hair-splitting comments have some positive outcome ;-)

Wasn't Barère considered the best orator of the CPS?
I stumbled across a lot of historians commenting with snark on Barère's elaborated metaphors and particular style, and after reading and analysing four of his speeches/reports in detail... I have to agree. XD

I think he was considered the most flowery orator, and one who was most often a spokesman for the CSP, but I don't know that we was or is really considered the *best*.

Yes, flowery would be the term. Oh, Barère. *shakes head*

XD; I believe this was especially noted for his descriptions of military victories...?

Yes, wasn't his nickname "The Anacreon of the Guillotine" (Palmer pg 394) The question is, why Anacreon? Of all the greek poets, why did they choose one notable for his drinking songs?

Hahahahaha...I am sure they knew what they were doing xD

As far as division of responsabilities, it obviously existed to some extent, but from what I've read there was a lot more overlap than most people seemed to think (ie, Carnot did not solely concern himself with military matters, or Lindet with subsistence, just to name the two most recognized attributions). For those who spent most of their time on mission, like Prieur de la Marne or Jeanbon Saint-André, it's a different story.

To speak to just one aspect of power dynamics, it strikes me that Barère was probably the single most powerful member of the CSP (contrary to popular belief). If I recall correctly, he signed the most arrêtés and (again contrary to popular belief) he was much more of a spokesman for the CSP, than, say, Robespierre ever was. (To clarify, obviously Robespierre did give several reports in the name of the CSP, so I'm not denying *his* role as *a* spokesman, merely pointing out that Barère's was probably greater.)

I don't know off hand..and i'm kind of brain dead..But i do remember that Saint-Andre/ and Prieur (one of them..can't remember if it was Prieur de la Marne or Prieur of Côte-d’O) was in charge of the naval affairs.

Carnot and Saint-Just had affairs of the Army..and I think Maxime kind of dabbled in a lot of the other work, because i did read like a whole chapter on it from Robespierre by J.M Thompson; and it gives a lot of detail on the different offices of the committee and whatnot and their functions.
Who or what was responsible for all things..you know?

I think they all kind of had overlapping responsibilities and they all reported to one another and whatnot; so they were all in the loop.

But i'm remembering from the top of my head or whatnot..

Monthly Discussion Point: The Committee of Public Safety

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject