No. 76.
Mr. Washburne to Mr. Fish.
Legation of
the United States,
Paris, October 13, 1876.
(Received October 26.)
No. 1386.]
Sir: From his connection with our revolutionary
history, and from his writings, which have enjoyed a certain consideration,
the life and history of Thomas Paine have always occupied a good deal of
attention in our country. No part of his career has greater general interest
than that connected with the French revolution. He was a member of the
National Convention of France, (which opened its session September 21,
1792,) from the department of the Pas de Calais. A revolutionist by
character and instinct, many of his pamphlets had been translated into
French and widely read; such was the influence of his writings upon the
public mind in France that he was made a French citizen by a legislative
decree, in order that he might be eligible to that extraordinary convention,
the history of which, for nearly a century, has challenged the profoundest
interest and attention of every historian and every student of the French
revolution. Though he labored under the great disadvantage of not speaking
or writing the French language, still, from his character and reputation, he
seems to have enjoyed a considerable influence as a member of the
convention, as is evident from the fact that he was one of the members of
the commission which was named to draw up the constitution of the year
III.
Some days since I made application to Mr. Maury, the director-general of the
national archives of France, for the purpose of ascertaining if anything
could there be found in relation to Paine. One of the results of my
examination was to find a most significant letter written by him to “citizen
Danton,” dated “May 6, 2d year of the republic,” (1793.) The letter is in
English, on an ordinary letter-sheet, written in a clear, legible, handsome
hand. I have never seen the letter published, and I beg to send you herewith
a copy thereof, for I am certain you will find it very interesting and will
consider it a valuable contribution to history. Before reading the letter I
was not aware that Danton understood the English language; though I had once
seen it charged against him that he associated “avec les
Anglais.” At the time of the revolution it was as unusual to hear
English spoken in Paris as it is now to hear Arabic. Marat, however, must
have understood the language, for he had lived some time in England, and was
once a teacher in Edinburgh.
You will be struck by the friendly feeling expressed in the letter towards
the “twenty-two deputies,” (the Girondists,) and which shows that
notwithstanding the relations Paine may have had with Danton and Marat, that
his sympathies and associations were with the better elements of the
convention and not with the Montagnards. His letter is dated the 6th of May,
and it was on the 31st of the same month that the commune of Paris delegated
its mob to go to the bar of the convention to demand the arrest of these
unfortunate men. Robespierre must have known the sentiments and feelings of
Paine, for I find in the curious and elaborate report made by Courtois to
the national convention, on the papers seized at the house of Robespierre,
an extract from his note-book which is as follows: “Demandé que Thomas Payne soit décité d’accusation pour les intérêts de
V Amérique autant que la France.” Happily for Paine, the 9th
Thermidor overtook Robespierre before his name was added to the long lists
of victims which that sanguinary apostle of the revolution was daily sending
to the guillotine.
[Page 127]
The decree which naturalized Paine was passed by the legislative assembly
August 22, 1792, and just in time to qualify him as a candidate for the
national convention. He was not only chosen for the Pas de Calais, but in
Abbeville, Beauvais, and Versailles. He elected to sit for the Pas de
Calais. The decree of his naturalization was afterwards revoked, and his
name stricken off the list of members of the convention. He was imprisoned
in the Luxembourg, but was finally released through the intervention of our
minister, at that time Mr. Monroe. It was his refusal to vote for the death
of the king, and his opposition to the revolutionary government, that lost
him caste with the controlling elements of the time. It is possible I may
find some other facts connected with him, and if so will make them the
subject of another dispatch. The charm and fascination of French
revolutionary history holds the same empire over me as it does over all who
are subjected to its wonderful influence.
I have, &c.,
[Inclosure.]
Mr. Paine to
Citoyen Danton.
Paris, May 6, (second year of the
republic.)
Citoyen Danton: As you read English, I write
this letter to you without passing it through the hands of a
translator.
I am exceedingly distressed at the distractions, jealousies, discontents,
and uneasiness that reign among us, and which, if they continue, will
bring ruin and disgrace on the republic. When I left America in the year
1787 it was my intention to return the year following, but the French
revolution, and the prospect it afforded of extending the principles of
liberty and fraternity through the greater part of Europe, have induced
me to prolong my stay upwards of six years. I now despair of seeing the
great object of European liberty accomplished, and my despair arises not
from the combined foreign powers, not from the intrigues of aristocracy
and priestcraft, but from the tumultuous misconduct with which the
international affairs of the present revolution is conducted.
All that can now be hoped for is limited to France only, and I perfectly
agree with your motion of not interfering in the government of any
foreign country, nor permitting any foreign country to interfere in the
government of France. This decree was necessary as a preliminary towards
terminating the war; but while those internal contentions continue,
while the hope remains to the enemy of seeing the republic fall to
pieces, while not only the representatives of the departments but
representation itself is publicly insulted, as it has lately been and
now is, by the people of Paris, or at least by the tribunes, the enemy
will be encouraged to hang about the frontiers and wait the event of
circumstances.
I observe that the confederated powers have not yet recognized Monsieur
or d’Artois as regent, nor made any proclamation in favor of any of the
Bourbons; but this negative conduct admits of two different conclusions.
The one is that of abandoning the Bourbons and the war together; the
other is that of changing the object of the war and substituting a
partition scheme in the place of their first object, as they have done
by Poland. If this should be their object the internal contentions that
now rage will favor that object far more than it favored their former
object. The danger every day increases of a rupture between Paris and
the departments. The departments did not send their deputies to Paris to
be insulted, and every insult shown to them is an insult to the
departments that elected and sent them. I see but one effectual plan to
prevent this rupture taking place, and that is to fix the residence of
the convention and of the future assemblies at a distance from
Paris.
I saw, during the American Revolution, the exceeding inconveniences that
arose by having the Government of Congress within the limits of any
municipal jurisdiction. Congress first resided at Philadelphia, and,
after a residence of four years, it found it necessary to leave it. It
then adjourned to the State of Jersey; it afterwards removed to New
York; it again removed from New York to Philadelphia, and, after
experiencing in every one of those places the great inconvenience of a
government within a government, it formed the project of building a
town, not within the limits of any municipal
[Page 128]
jurisdiction, for the future residence of
Congress. In every one of the places where Congress resided the
municipal authority privately or openly opposed itself to the authority
of Congress, and the people of each of those places expected more
attention from Congress than their equal share with the other States
amounted to. The same things now takes place in Paris, but in a far
greater excess.
I see also another embarrassing circumstance arising in Paris, of which
we have had full experience in America. I mean that of fixing the price
of provisions. But if this measure is to be attempted, it ought to be
done by the municipality. The convention has nothing to do with
regulations of this kind, neither can they be carried into practice. The
people of Paris may say they will not give more than a certain price for
provisions, but as they cannot compel the country-people to bring
provisions to market, the consequence will be directly contrary to their
expectations, and they will find dearness and famine instead of plenty
and cheapness. They may force the price down upon the stock in hand, but
after that the market will be empty. I will give you an example.
In Philadelphia we undertook, among other regulations of this kind, to
regulate the price of salt; the consequence was that no salt was brought
to market, and the price rose to thirty-six shillings sterling per
bushel. The price before the war was only one shilling and sixpence per
bushel; and we regulated the price of flour (farine) till there was none
in the market, and the people were glad to procure it at any price.
There is also a circumstance to be taken into the account which is not
much attended to. The assignats are not of the same value they were a
year ago, and as the quantity increase the value of them will diminish.
This gives the appearance of things being dear when they are not so in
fact, for in the same proportion that any kind of money falls in value,
articles rise in price. If it were not for this the quantity of
assignats would be too great to be circulated. Paper money in America
fell so much in value from the excessive quantity of it, that in the
year 1781 I gave three hundred paper dollars for one pair of worsted
stockings. What I write you on this subject is experience, and not
merely opinion.
I have no personal interest in any of those matters, nor in any party
disputes; I attend only to general principles. As soon as a constitution
shall be established, I shall return to America, and be the future
prosperity of France ever so great, I shall enjoy no other part of it
than the happiness of knowing it. In the mean time I am distressed to
see matters so badly conducted, and so little attention paid to moral
principles. It is these things that injure the character of the
Revolution, and discourage the progress of liberty all over the
world.
When I began this letter I did not intend making it so lengthy, but since
I have gone thus far I will fill up the remainder of the sheet with such
matters as shall occur to me.
There ought to be some regulation with respect to the spirit of
denunciation that now prevails. If every individual is to indulge his
private malignancy, or his private ambition, to denounce at random and
without any kind of proof, all confidence will be undermined and all
authority be destroyed. Calumny is a species of treachery that ought to
be punished as well as any other kind of treachery. It is a private
vice, productive of a public evil, because it is possible to irritate
men into disaffection by continual calumny, who never intended to be
disaffected. It is, therefore, equally as necessary to guard against the
evils of unfounded or malignant suspicion as against the evils of blind
confidence. It is equally as necessary to protect the characters of
public officers from calumny as it is to punish them for treachery or
misconduct. For my own part I shall hold it a matter of doubt, until
batter evidence arise than is known at present, whether Dumourier has
been a traitor from policy or from resentment. There certainly was a
time when he acted well, but it is not every man whose mind is strong
enough to bear up against ingratitude, and I think he experienced a
great deal of this before he revolted.
Calumny becomes harmless and defeats itself when it attempts to act upon
too large a scale. Thus, the denunciation of the sections against the
twenty-two deputies falls to the ground. The departments that elected
them are better judges of their moral and political characters than
those who have denounced them. This denunciation will injure Paris in
the opinion of the departments, because it has the appearance of
dictating to them what sort of deputies they shall elect. Most of the
acquaintance that I have in the convention are among those who are in
that list, and I know there are not better men nor better patriots than
what they are.
I have written a letter to Marat of the same date as this, but not on the
same subject. He may show it to you if he chooses.
Votre ami,