![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
La Fayette =/= heroic
Monday, 27 August 2007 14:55What is wrong with Americans when it comes to La Fayette? (I could, of course, ask that question more generally, but that would be an entirely different subject.)
I just read a review of a new book about La Fayette in Newsweek and it says the following (with annotations by me):
"Their [La Fayette and Washington's] egalitarianism should not be overstated [You can say that again, really]. By "all men," they meant white, male property owners. But they were true revolutionaries: they were intent on overthrowing a system that fixed status at birth and replacing it with a system that rewarded merit [Is that so? It doesn't look like it from where I'm standing]. Washington and Lafayette were more progressive than most of the Founding Fathers [though, to be honest, that's not saying much]. After the Revolution, Lafayette suggested that the two men buy an estate together and free the slaves who worked there. The idea never materialized--Lafayette sailed home to agitate for liberty in his native France [but then, so did Mounier in the years leading up the Revolution, and yet we find him sitting with the monarchiens in the Constituant Assembly]--but Washington's will dictated that his slaves be feed after he and his wife died. [Considering the attitude of the Convention as far as slavery goes, I can't really say I'm particularly impressed.]
"Gaines [the author], a former editor of Time [that would explain it], writes about the two [one] great republican revolutions of the late 18th century knowingly [I'll believe it when I see it; in the meanwhile, you'll forgive me for being skeptical.] and, at times, elegantly, though readers may get bogged down in his dense forays into French thought and politics [Oh no! not the dense forays! What ever shall we do?!1!!!1]. His portrait of the relentlessly optimistic Lafayette, swept away by the excesses of the French Revolution [like the excess of innocent and unarmed civilians shot on the Champ-de-Mars, or are we forgetting that detail?] and driven into prison and exile [driven by himself and his own ambition, perhaps], is poignant [I'm sure]. Lafayette was ultimately vindicated--the modern French Constitution invokes his [Hear that? Gilles César is now solely responsible for the Declaration of Rights--good to know that no one else was involved and that there wasn't a more evolved version set out in 1793. It's especially good to know that La Fayette is personally responsible for everything positive in the entire Revolution, whereas, I assume, responsibility for anything negative goes exclusively to the Robespierristes. I don't know what I could have done without that information.] Declaration of the Rights of Man [...] But he [La Fayette] was no hypocrite [Evidence?]. During France's revolutionary upheaval of 1789, Lafayette, who had been appointed commander in chief on the National Guard [Let us all take this moment to note that La Fayette's only position of power was unelected, and that he lost the mayoral election to Pétion], could have seized power as the classic Man on a White Horse (he rode an enormous white charger). But he remained faithful to an abiding principle: that government belongs to the people, and not to any one man, no matter how noble."
Now, that last bit is just a complete lie: if La Fayette didn't seize power, it certainly wasn't through lack of trying, as he attempted to seize the dictatorship on two separate occasions, the second one of which was such a complete failure that his troops refused to go with him to the capital. Following this, he defected to the Austrians in order to escape a quite justified arrest. Honestly, I don't have much sympathy, either for him, or for the author of this article. Far be it for said author (Evan Thomas, if anyone wants to know) to let the facts get in the way of his hero-worship.
I just read a review of a new book about La Fayette in Newsweek and it says the following (with annotations by me):
"Their [La Fayette and Washington's] egalitarianism should not be overstated [You can say that again, really]. By "all men," they meant white, male property owners. But they were true revolutionaries: they were intent on overthrowing a system that fixed status at birth and replacing it with a system that rewarded merit [Is that so? It doesn't look like it from where I'm standing]. Washington and Lafayette were more progressive than most of the Founding Fathers [though, to be honest, that's not saying much]. After the Revolution, Lafayette suggested that the two men buy an estate together and free the slaves who worked there. The idea never materialized--Lafayette sailed home to agitate for liberty in his native France [but then, so did Mounier in the years leading up the Revolution, and yet we find him sitting with the monarchiens in the Constituant Assembly]--but Washington's will dictated that his slaves be feed after he and his wife died. [Considering the attitude of the Convention as far as slavery goes, I can't really say I'm particularly impressed.]
"Gaines [the author], a former editor of Time [that would explain it], writes about the two [one] great republican revolutions of the late 18th century knowingly [I'll believe it when I see it; in the meanwhile, you'll forgive me for being skeptical.] and, at times, elegantly, though readers may get bogged down in his dense forays into French thought and politics [Oh no! not the dense forays! What ever shall we do?!1!!!1]. His portrait of the relentlessly optimistic Lafayette, swept away by the excesses of the French Revolution [like the excess of innocent and unarmed civilians shot on the Champ-de-Mars, or are we forgetting that detail?] and driven into prison and exile [driven by himself and his own ambition, perhaps], is poignant [I'm sure]. Lafayette was ultimately vindicated--the modern French Constitution invokes his [Hear that? Gilles César is now solely responsible for the Declaration of Rights--good to know that no one else was involved and that there wasn't a more evolved version set out in 1793. It's especially good to know that La Fayette is personally responsible for everything positive in the entire Revolution, whereas, I assume, responsibility for anything negative goes exclusively to the Robespierristes. I don't know what I could have done without that information.] Declaration of the Rights of Man [...] But he [La Fayette] was no hypocrite [Evidence?]. During France's revolutionary upheaval of 1789, Lafayette, who had been appointed commander in chief on the National Guard [Let us all take this moment to note that La Fayette's only position of power was unelected, and that he lost the mayoral election to Pétion], could have seized power as the classic Man on a White Horse (he rode an enormous white charger). But he remained faithful to an abiding principle: that government belongs to the people, and not to any one man, no matter how noble."
Now, that last bit is just a complete lie: if La Fayette didn't seize power, it certainly wasn't through lack of trying, as he attempted to seize the dictatorship on two separate occasions, the second one of which was such a complete failure that his troops refused to go with him to the capital. Following this, he defected to the Austrians in order to escape a quite justified arrest. Honestly, I don't have much sympathy, either for him, or for the author of this article. Far be it for said author (Evan Thomas, if anyone wants to know) to let the facts get in the way of his hero-worship.
