Declaration of The Rights of Man

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen

The representatives of the French people, organized as a National Assembly, believing that the ignorance, neglect, or contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, inalienable, and sacred rights of man, in order that this declaration, being constantly before all the members of the social body, shall remind them continually of their rights and duties; in order that the acts of the legislative power, as well as those of the executive power, may be compared at any moment with the objects and purposes of all political institutions and may thus be more respected; and, lastly, in order that the grievance of the citizens, based hereafter upon simple and incontestable principles, shall tend to the maintenance of the constitution and redound to the happiness of all. Therefore the National Assembly recognizes and proclaims in the presence and under the auspices of the Supreme Being, the following rights of man and of the citizen:
1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good.
2. The aim of all political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.
3. The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the nation. No body nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the nation.
4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.
5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.
6. Law is the expression of the general will Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its formation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents.
7. No person shall be accused, arrested, or imprisoned except in the cases and according to the forms prescribed by law. Any one soliciting, transmitting, executing, or causing to be executed, any arbitrary order, shall be punished. But any citizen summoned or arrested in virtue of the law shall submit without delay, as resistance constitutes an offense.
8. The law shall provide for such punishments only as are strictly and obviously necessary, and no one shall suffer punishment except it be legally inflicted in virtue of a law passed and promulgated before the commission of the offense.
9. As all persons are held innocent until they shall have been declared guilty, if arrest shall be deemed indispensable, all harshness not essential to the securing of the prisoner's person shall be severely repressed by law.
10. No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law.
11. The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law.
12. The security of the rights of man and of the citizen requires public military forces. These forces are, therefore, established for the good of all and not for the personal advantage of those to whom they shall be intrusted.
13. A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.
14. All the citizens have a right to decide, either personally or by their representatives, as to the necessity of the public contribution; to grant this freely; to know to what uses it is put; and to fix the proportion, the mode of assessment and of collection and the duration of the taxes.
15. Society has the right to require of every public agent an account of his administration.
16. A society in which the observance of the law is not assured, nor the separation of powers defined, has no constitution at all.
17. Since property is an inviolable and sacred right, no one shall be deprived thereof except where public necessity, legally determined, shall clearly demand it, and then only on condition that the owner shall have been previously and equitably indemnified.

Address of the Commune of Marseilles (27 June 1792)

ANGE JOSEPH ANTOINE ROUX (FRENCH, 1765-1835)

signed, dated and inscribed `Antne Roux Delin/Marseilles 1814`

In late spring 1792, a group of militant journalists and section leaders began planning an uprising that they hoped would lead to the summoning of a new assembly for the specific purpose of rewriting the constitution to create a genuine republic—thereby eliminating the King altogether. They hoped to enlist activists from the Parisian sections and armed volunteer units from the provinces who would be coming to the capital for another Festival of 14 July. Particularly noted for their revolutionary ardor were the units from Marseilles, who arrived in Paris in late June with a new battle hymn later named "the Marseillaise" and with an address to the Legislative Assembly from the municipal government.

---

Legislators, the nation entrusts you with the maintenance and defense of its liberty, its independence, and the sovereignty of its rights. The law establishing the monarchy, which your predecessors set up without any regard for the claims and grievances of the nation, is contrary to the rights of man. It is time that this tyrannical law at last be abolished, that the nation make use of all its rights, and that it govern itself.

"Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions can only be based on the usefulness to the community." Legislators, these are the principles of the constitution of every free nation. We are entitled to them because your predecessors decreed them and because Frenchmen have adopted them and have sworn to defend them.

The goal of every political association is the preservation of man's natural and inalienable right to liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.

All citizens are equal before the law. All are equally worthy of human dignity and equally eligible to all public offices, positions, and employments, based on their abilities, and without other distinction than that of virtues and talents.

Legislators, such are the eternal basis of all political principles. Whatever is contrary to such principles must be excluded from a free constitution. How, then, could our constituents, your predecessors, establish upon these bases the monstrous pretension of one particular family that the crown be delegated hereditarily, by order of primogeniture? What can become of that reigning family at a time when everything must be regenerated? What has that reigning family done to be preferred to every other? Should there be a law that makes one person inviolate? Does that inviolability guarantee him against the assassin's blade? Does this privilege not subvert every principle? Who would recognize therein the principles of that sovereign reason which consecrated the inalienable rights of man by decreeing that there no longer was any hereditary distinction? Is that supreme distinction founded upon usefulness to the community? What constituent is wise enough to be able to ensure and guarantee that the son of the greatest and most just of kings will be like his father, not a traitor or a scoundrel? According to this pernicious law, would it not follow that the son could be wicked, and with impunity bring misery upon men that the same law would subject to the fury of his crimes? No, legislators, it is only the hired fomenters of tyranny who have been capable of abandoning themselves to such delirium! And it is in the sanctuary destined for the triumph of liberty, reason, and justice that this undeserved claim has obtained the force of law! What infamy! The nation cannot subscribe to it. Empty claims have been made in the past that are supposed to be in effect today. Because there is one sole sovereign, he has the incontestable right to approve or reject the laws that its representatives impose on him.

What, then, has this ruling family done to be elevated to this position? What has given rise to this homage? Could it be the ruin of our finances? Could it be the iron scepter that is used to smite us stealing our gold and exhausting our subsistence? Or could it be the descendants of that family, rife with emigrant rebels and criminals burdened with debt and accusations that our constituents have forced us to recognize as masters? Do not be offended by that word, Legislators. It signifies nothing to us. But such is the pretension of kings, such is the intention of cowards and slaves. . . .

Does not the gold required by the enormous civil list, which cannot be reduced until a change of reign, perpetuate the means of corruption? And might not those means ruin the nation before it had the right to abolish them? And as for the independent guard which our constituents granted their King, which the nation pays for by maintaining the civil list, can a private force exist in accordance with the terms of the Rights of Man? And if it is a public force, must it serve only the King? And is not that law that allows the King alone to chose and dismiss the ministers, despite his alleged sense of responsibility, an inexhaustible source of abuse, crime, and disorder, as well as an eternal wellspring of division and contradiction? And, finally, does not that suspensive veto, which allows a single person to oppose our best laws despite the general will, completely destroy our Constitution? Can the legislative power survive in the presence of that destructive law? And can the judicial power, created and sustained by the legislature, be effective if the executive power paralyzes our laws?

Legislators, admit that our constituents have created nothing; and if you wish to be something useful to the nation, repeal one law which nullifies the national will.

We all know the history of our misfortunes so it would be useless to review it. The indignation which it provokes has reached its height. Let us hasten to destroy the cause of it and reestablish our rights. Let the executive power be appointed and reelected by the people, just as, with some slight differences, the other two branches of government are. That accomplished, all will soon be made right.

Done at Marseilles, in the Town Hall, 27 June, Year IV of liberty. [1792]

Signed: The General Council of the Commune of Marseilles

Source: John Hall Stewart, A Documentary Survey of the French Revolution (New York: Macmillan, 1951), 302–4. (Slightly retranslated)

http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/d/317/

Mareseilles

Marseilles

The Phocaean City : Marseilles

In the year 599 BC, the Phocaeans, wanting to establish an entry into Gaul, launched a maritime expedition lead by a man named Protis. Arriving in the Bay of Marseilles, Protis donned his most beautiful garments and presented himself to the King, carrying beautiful gifts, in order to ask for his authorization to found a city. However, on that precise day, the King was organizing an enormous feast in honor of his only daughter, Gyptis, for whom he wished to find a husband. Custom said that after a scrumptious and solemn meal, where strangers could even partake, the young girl would appear, dressed in her most beautiful attire, and offer a cup to her chosen one. The beautiful girl was immediately seduced by the handsome Protis and it is to him that she chose to give the cup. Somewhat surprised, the old King consented to the marriage and gave in dowry the area hoped for by the newcomers. And that is how Massalia, the Phocaean City, future city of Marseilles, was established.

A Revolutionary Chant : The Marseillaise

Following the declaration of war with Austria, the mayor of Strasbourg asked Claude Joseph Rouget de Lisle, captain of engineering and amateur musician, to compose a war song. During the night of April 24th to 25th, 1792 he wrote the "the War Chant for the Rhine Army". The melody became quite popular in the entire country and was played during a patriotic banquet held in Marseilles. The Revolutionary forces from Marseilles sang it proudly upon their arrival in Paris and during their invasion of the Tuileries Gardens on July 30th, 1792. The Parisians spontaneously baptized it "The Marseillaise". However, in sign of recognition to the Republicans, it was forbidden during the reign of Napoleon, Louis Eighteenth and Napoleon the Third. Returned to its honorary state after the revolution of 1830, it became the national anthem under the Third Republic. The irony of it all is that Rouget de Lisle was in fact a royalist! He was imprisoned and barely escaped the guillotine for having refused to pledge allegiance to the new constitution.

The Sardine That Blocked the Port Entrance

"We" say, in France (understanding that the "we" excludes the people of Marseilles), that the people of Marseilles have a tendency to exaggerate their stories. And it is stated, by these local people, that one day a sardine (the little fish!) blocked the entrance to the port. But this is not said in jest, a slight distortion maybe! In 1778, the Viscount of Barras, officer of the marine infantry regiment from Pondichery in India was captured by the British. Benefiting from special accords for prisoner of war exchanges, he embarked the following year on a boat, named the "Sartine", which was not armed. To prevent potential attacks upon it, the captain would raise certain cartel flags that the enemy would recognize. However, the rule was not respected, because on May 1st, 10 months after being at sea without incident, a British war boat attacked the "Sartine" with two fatal canon volleys. The ship finished its trip and ran aground at the entrance to the old port. It is therefore not a "sardine" that blocked the port of Marseilles but a ship named "La Sartine", on a beautiful spring day in 1780!

A Mediterranean Alcatraz : A Special Prison

Unless one was in solitary confinement, the "tenants" of the castle of If could communicate freely and stroll the terrace of the dungeon unrestricted. Although the Knight of Anselme, accused of a plot against the monarchy, was found strangled in his cell in 1580, others, on the contrary enjoyed almost a happy life: the Count of Mirabeau, famous activist of the French Revolution, incarcerated in 1774 at his father’s request, managed to cajole the commanding warden and seduce the canteen woman. However, one must not forget the thousands of Protestants who perished on the island under terrible conditions. One must also mention that the Chateau of If became famous thanks to a fictional character: Edmond Dantes. Victim of a plot, he was arrested and imprisoned at the chateau on the day of his wedding. He succeeded in escaping 14 years later, thereby creating the myth of being the sole escapee from the chateau d’If, and pursued his vengeance incessantly. We will stop here without continuing the story as we recommend the reading of one of the most famous books, written in 1845 by Alexandre Dumas, also translated throughout the world and the inspiration for no less than 23 movies: "The Count of Monte Christo."