Letter to Danton

Paris, May sixth, second year of the Republic.
[1793.]

Citoyen Danton: As you read English, I write this letter to you without passing it through the hands of a translator.  I am exceedingly disturbed 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 internal affairs of the present Revolution are conducted.
 
All that now can be hoped for is limited to France only, and I agree with your motion of [begin page 95] 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 toward terminating the war.  But while these 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 await the issue 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 [begin page 96] 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 inconvenience that arose by having the government of Congress within the limits of any municipal jurisdiction.  Congress first resided in 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 these places the great inconvenience of a government, it formed the project of building a town, not within the limits of any municipal jurisdiction, for the future residence of Congress.  In anyone 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 these places expected more attention from Congress than their equal share with the other states [begin page 97] amounted to.  The same thing now takes place in France, 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 practise.  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 (farina) till there [begin page 98] 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 increases 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 this 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 upon the subject is experience, and not merely opinion.  I have no personal interest in any of these 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 meantime I am distressed to see matters so badly conducted, and so little attention paid to moral principles.  It is these [begin page 99] 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 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 public evils; 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 better evidence arises than is known at present, whether Dumouriez has been a traitor from [begin page 100] policy or resentment.  There was certainly 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 [of Paris] against the twenty-two deputies [Girondists] 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 acquaintances 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 choose.
Votre Ami,
Thomas Paine. 
Citoyen Danton.