You may be as different as the sun and the moon, but the same blood flows through both your hearts. You need her, as she needs you.

(Source: maisiewilliams)

antisepticbandaid:

this was supposed to be serious but then i imagined enjolras in a snuggie im not being serious today

queercarlos asked:
Once you get this you have to say 5 nice things about yourself publicly then send it to ten of your favorite followers. Not back to me!
  1. I have cute friends (example: you)
  2. I’m pretty decent when I write
  3. my cat loves me, so I must be doing something right
  4. I’m really, really, really great at my job
  5. my hair’s super duper 

G r a n t a i r e in the presence of E n j o l r a s became some one once more.

(Source: ouhlalas)

needsmoreresearch:

pilferingapples:

edwarddespard:

TWO SILK BROCADE GENTS’ VESTS, 1830-1850 
Sold through Augusta Auctions

"Both w/ shawl collars, 7 small front buttons, 1 pair inset front pockets & brown glazed cotton backs: 1 sapphire blue, brocade of black & ivory floral sprays, blue/black silk"

That description is just…just gonna pretend those stripes aren’t happening, isn’t it? I LOVE THOSE STRIPES, THOSE STRIPES ARE AMAZING.

I trust whoever made it was rightfully proud of getting the stripes just so on the pockets and the lapels.  Because damn.

pilferingapples:

foreordain:

i just wanted to post these bad quality pics of the painting i did in art of enjolras

unfortunately i won’t get a change to take a better picture until tuesday because this baby is huge and i can’t take it home

It’s so cool to see the progress shots! And I love how the flag is curving around and hiding the flowers from him, just WOW.

Anonymous asked:
Hi. I have a question, and you're always really insightful, so I just wanted to hear your POV. I don't know if you've already answered this, but I've often heard Vendée being referred to as genocide. Do you agree? Why or why not?

tweetonslacarmagnole:

bunniesandbeheadings:

The short answer is no. No it was not.

In preparation for my answer, I indulged myself by pulling my books off their shelves and spelunking through the bowels of google and JSOTR. I reacquainted myself with the Vendée Rising and all its tendrils, its beginnings, its life, its end. The morbid in me had a good time, the moralist in me had a miserable one. But even as I poked through the research, I had a ringing in my ear. I was wasting my time. Because I was dissecting your question as though my contention needed to go any deeper than a superficial analysis of Internationally Accepted definitions. 

This isn’t a matter of agreement or opinion. This isn’t a matter of ideological grounding. This isn’t a matter of my banging my gavel and declaring the Vendée War “just” or “unjust,” the former somehow cleansing it of genocidal motivations and the latter condemning it of the same - and I thank heavens for that, as my feelings are gray on the best of days. As enthusiastic Robespierrist Jacobin Terrorist sympathizer as I am, I still mark the Vendée War as a blemish on the Republican government. The atrocities make me blanch. 

The atrocities, I might add, that were fueled by both sides. We could start running a tally of we liked: the Republicans had the infamous Carrier but the royalists had the not-so-famous-but-equally-depraved Charette. But I’m not going to nickel and dime war crimes and try to bring up a total of “who was worse” because that would be both depraved and pointless - the crimes of one don’t necessarily expunge the crimes of another. I only mention this duality to highlight the nature of these atrocities: they were not independent acts of aggression but war crimes. The Vendée was at war with the French Republic. Arguably, this was the explicit roar of counterrevolution whereas the rest of France ran with an insidious undercurrent. 

To pull everyone up to speed, the civil war in the Vendée broke out when the Convention called up 300,000 men to protect the “nation in danger” after the execution of Louis XVI spurred a general coalition. In three decrees issued February 1793, all unmarried Frenchman from ages 18-40 were declared eligible for military service. This draft is widely considered to be the catalyst - though not the inherent cause - that brought the Vendée citizens to arms against the Republic; dissatisfied with the Revolution’s reforms and offended by Republican attitude towards the religion, they calculated that if they had to fight they would rather fight for a good cause rather than a bad one. And so they did; when the decree for the levy was heard in Angers on March 10 and insurrection broke out on March 11 along the left bank of the Loire. On March 12 peasant shouting the slogan “No conscription!” and “Down with the militia!” seized Saint-Florent-le-Vieil, an important crossing point from the Vendée to Normandy. Meanwhile, the capital of Retz oversee the slaughter of 545 Republican (or bourgeois) victims. 

The French Government took a rather dim view of the massacre of 545 Republicans and so began the Vendée War. It was certainly motivated by more than mere dissatisfaction with the draft but I’m not here to dissect its causes but to discuss its end: did it end in genocide? 

As I reiterated, atrocities occurred, yes, I freely admit this: and anyone who would deny this is flatly delusional. But all of these excesses are bound within this context of Civil War, a war carried on with desperate determination by fanatical royalist and fanatical republican alike. It roused the hideous passions of human nature. Both sides habitually burned the cities captured by their opposition - the Republicans were cavalier with the lives of Vendée noncombatants and so too were Vendée combatants. Nearly every march, every victory, every evacuation – every turn was punctuated by acts of incalculable cruelty by whichever side emerged dominant. 

And while all genocides are atrocities, not all atrocities are genocides. 

What is a genocide?

Viewing the Convention for the Prevention of Genocide:

Article II:  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group; 

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Killing certainly occurred.

But are we going to maintain that the French government killed French citizens because of their national origin? Unless the Terror was to be punctuated by a mass-Jacobin suicide, no. 

Are we maintaining that the French government killed French citizens because of their ethnic origin? Even assuming that Vendée citizens were ethnically distinguishable from Parisian citizens: No. Same holds true for the race question. It is perhaps worth mentioning here at the Vendée did not rise as one; many of its inhabitants swore to the Republican ‘Blues’ rather than to the royal ‘Whites.’ They were not highlighted for extermination due to their bloodline. On the other hand, many individuals on the other side of the Loire swore to the ‘whites’ instead of the ‘blues.’ Were they spared due to their racial or ethnic makeup? 

We’re having something colloquially called the ‘Reign of Terror.’ You tell me. In fact, so far from eliminating the race or bloodline of the Vendée, the most rabid of bloodthirsty beasts, like Carrier, had arranged an adoption program for the children who had been orphaned in the carnage. (Not that this paltry act of humanity excludes Carrier from approbation for his other acts. But if he was interested in eliminating the bloodline of  Vendée rebels, ensuring the orphans were cared for was a poor strategic move on his part. ) 

Now comes the religious question. Was the French Republican government killing citizens of the Vendée because of their devotion to the Catholic religion? No. It is possible that the rebels rose due to their affinity for the Church but the French government did not mind the affinity except insofar as it encouraged them to rebel. 

Some might here maintain, as they maintain throughout any discussion of the Terror, “But they killed all the aristocrats!” But socio-political class is not on the list and is not an intrinsic characteristic — so the extermination of aristocrats would not qualify as a genocidal hostility. But the point is a moot one, as the French Republic did not engage in the attempted extinction of all members of he aristocratic group even during in its most questionable of Tribunals. Like citizens of the Vendée, people of the aristocratic class were on all different sides of the French Revolution. 

It has been pointed out to me that the word genocide has - justly - an infectious connotation that taps into the emotions rather than reason. Emerging from the bloody 20th century, this is understandable: we see someone denying a genocide occurred and we rightly think of the documented instances of genocide that are nonetheless denied, and draw parallels between them. There’s a “better safe than sorry!” mentality which encourages us to err on the side of those crying genocide rather than those denying it, for we are all tired of the denials ringing from those with bloodstained hands. So I just say: the War of the Vendée does not qualify as a genocide according to the most basic tenets of the internationally accepted definition. The matter of whether the Vendée was just to rise, whether the French Republic had any right to fire upon its rebelling citizens, etc., is, as I mentioned, a separate matter entirely. 

As I stated in my opening, all genocides are atrocities. But not all atrocities are genocides. 

But hey: let’s all do some reading!

In English:

Farewell, Revolution edited by Steven Kaplan contextualizes the ‘genocide’ debate in a swift and accurate manner. The book itself is not straight history but an exploration of the Revolution’s historiographical debates but it still suits its purpose nicely. 

The Reign of Terror by Wilfred B. Kerr has an intriguing chapter on the war, although it focuses most prominently on Carrier and is perhaps a little too favorable to the Republican cause. Lovely in any case. 

The Vendée by Charles Tilly primarily discusses the underpining motivations of the rising but contains a handy end chapter detailing the key events. 

The French Revolution and the Church by John McManners is a piece I have not read but I have heard fine things about it and seen it cited in works I respect. I imagine, given its title, it evaluates the church’s role in the war. 

In the land of the French there is

La Contre-Revolution: Doctrine et action, 1789-1804 by Jacques Godechot. A primarily Republican interpretation, characterizing the uprising and its march. 

La Revolution et la Vendée by Emile Gabory. A royalist, counterrevolutionary analysis, focusing primarily on the religious undercurrent of the war. 

Since my blog focuses primarily on Robespierre, here are some links which discuss his role (generously provided by montagnarde1793)

http://revolution-francaise.net/2012/03/15/476-robespierre-bourreau-de-la-vendee-une-splendide-lecon-danti-methode-historique

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1lsrww_cecile-obligi-la-legende-noire-de-robespierre_school#from=embediframe

This is a pretty great Frev FAQ answer, tbh. (That’s still a thing, I can’t wait for the end of the semester to work on fun side projects!)

edwarddespard:

needsmoreresearch:

edwarddespard:

For when too much Robespierre Collar Fun Is Never Enough!

Rock Island Argus August 10, 1912

Holy smokes, it’s the neckwear of the moment.  We gotta get on that!

(Interesting that some of them seem to be really emphasizing the frilly jabot over the strong lapels.)

It it wrong of me to think that they’re totally going on about necks (one of the descriptions even says ooooo…can’t wear this one if your neck is too thick!) in a way that seems…odd…when they’re named after Robespierre? Like, we’re being totally unintentionally gallows (or guillotine) humour about this whole thing? “Robespierre Collars: ALL ABOUT THE NECK!” The general shape, though, can be related back to the popular portraits of Robespierre, which is where I’m going with the waistcoat. I’m looking through past auctions to see if I can find a 19th century waistcoat that loosely fits the look.

bellegold:

all those times hadley’s face did a thing during the 25th anniversary