Duport: I have one very short observation to make to the Assembly, which appears to be of the highest importance and which demands all its attention. You have regulated by the Constitution, Sirs, the qualities deemed necessary to become a French citizen, and an active citizen: that sufficed, I believe, to regulate all the incidental questions that could have been raised in the Assembly relative to certain professions, to certain persons. But there is a decree of adjournment that seems to strike a blow at these general rights: I speak of the Jews. To decide the question that concerns them, it suffices to lift the decree of adjournment that you have rendered and which seems to suspend the question in their regard. Thus, if you had not rendered a decree of adjournment on the question of the Jews, it would not have been necessary to do anything; for, having declared by your Constitution how all peoples of the earth could become French citizens and how all French citizens could become active citizens, there would have been no difficulty on this subject.
I ask therefore that the decree of adjournment be revoked and that it be declared relative to the Jews that they will be able to become active citizens, like all the peoples of the world, by fulfilling the conditions prescribed by the Constitution. I believe that freedom of worship no longer permits any distinction to be made between the political rights of citizens on the basis of their beliefs and I believe equally that the Jews cannot be the only exceptions to the enjoyment of these rights, when pagans, Turks, Muslims, Chinese even, men of all the sects, in short, are admitted to these rights.
Decree of the National Assembly, 27 September 1791:
"Admission of Jews to Rights of Citizenship," 27 September 1791
Your questions are due by Thursday evening at 11:59pm.
"that it be declared relative to the Jews" this quote implies the prior to this being written, the constitution was not relative to Jews. Since the Jews were such "financial heroes" this was probably not done purposely, So what made the constitution not relative to Jews?
ReplyDeleteWhat Duport suggests is a double-edged sword. By repealing the act of adjournment against Jews, would Jews be forced to assimilate? The case reminds me of something in United States history; the Dawes Act. The Dawes Act, which was basically a plot to assimilate Native Americans by in the late 19th century. Was this the ultimate goal of Duport, to force French Jews to assimilate and thus do away with the religion? Was this a treacherous anti-Semitic plot in France, like the Dreyfus Affair, or did Duport genuinely want Jews to have rights?
ReplyDeleteHowever, I cannot help but thinking that at the end of the day, it does not matter. Much like great art or literature; once an act like this is sent off into the world, it is no longer the author’s. Regardless of Duport’s intention, did Duport’s actions directly cause the assimilation of French Jews into society? Was it the beginning of a slippery slope which led to the end of Jewish autonomy?
I realize this is similar to Joey's question, but I also was curious about this topic - sorry Joey.
ReplyDeleteWhile it may have been Duport's intention to give the Jews equal rights, was there a strong push from the Jews themselves to gain these rights? By becoming full-fledged citizens, the Jews would have to revoke their previous right to rule their own communities autonomously and according to Jewish tradition. Did they want to give up these rights in exchange for citizenship that would protect their liberty to worship freely and openly? Some Jews probably viewed citizenship as huge benefit – they wouldn’t have to worry about being persecuted because the government could prosecute the persecutors (fun sentence). At the same time, some of the more fervently observant and traditional Jews may have viewed citizenship as forced assimilation. Was Duport aware of this possible conflict? Was he aware that he may have been imposing citizenship upon people who wished to remain autonomous? Was he in communication with any Jews, and if so, were they begging for citizenship or arguing against it? Once this "Admission of Jews to Rights of Citizenship," was issued, was there debate amongst the Jews as to whether they should accept citizenship or seek some sort of alternative?
The Declaration of Man and Citizen opens with “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights”. These were considered unalienable rights; however the Jews did not possess these rights. Consequently, Deport argued that the Jews should be entitled to these rights. At the time the Jews weren't the only ones discriminated and turned from these unalienable rights but also the Black African Slaves and the Women. Why didn't Deport advocate for their behalf as well?
ReplyDeleteSince when have Jews been so important as to “[appear] to be of the highest importance and which demands all its attention.”? Very rarely are things done because they are just in this world. Did Duport care for the rights of the Jews or did he have alterior motives? Was this a huge scam formulated by the government to take away the Jewish rights; not give the Jews ability to be citizens knowing that since they can’t have it they are going to want it, and once they want it, the assembly happily gives it to them and then they are going to assimilate? Or, couldn’t someone be bribing Duport to bring the injustice of the Jews to attention because they personally want them to assimilate?
ReplyDeleteDuport says "I ask therefore that the decree of adjournment be revoked and that it be declared relative to the Jews that they will be able to become active citizens, like all the peoples of the world, by fulfilling the conditions prescribed by the Constitution", what I'm wondering is why Duport feels the need to specify Jews and to make sure they specifically can become French, like Jon asked, why not anybody else? What was so great about the Jews to Duport? Did he have some kind of special relationship with them that we don't know of? Also, what makes Duport think that the Jews aren't included in the first place? In his explanation he says that the French wrote "all peoples of the earth could become French citizens and how all French citizens could become active citizens", doesn't "all people of the earth" include us as well? What do you think Duports motives were? Do you think he was being sincere in requested the Jews have equal rights, or do you think he had a hidden agenda?
ReplyDeleteP.S. I DID NOT SEE BENS I SWEAR :(
ReplyDeleteThis man obviously feels strongly about the Jews having equal rights and being treated as equal citizens, but no where in his proposal does he say the cause of this unfair treatment. How were people (generally) specifically treating Jews at this time and place?
ReplyDeleteThis document also says, "I believe that freedom of worship no longer permits any distinction to be made between the political rights of citizens on the basis of their beliefs". What does this writer mean by saying "no longer?" Meaning, what is specifically so different about this time period that makes freedom worship *no longer* a basis for judgement?
Rose L
My basic question is- Who was Duport?
ReplyDeleteThe reason why I ask the question is that in a culture where inequity in treatment of different religions had been common for such a long time (for example, even 150 years previously, Louis XIV stripped the Huguenots of many rights through the Edict of Nantes, among other things)-what had caused this change from what could be perceived as intolerance to complete equality? What type of culture was Duport living in that could have caused him to have such an accepting outlook? Is it possible that he happened to be a Jew? (and even so, the fact that he's speaking before the National Assembly shows Jews had or were becoming accepted into the political world) Could Duport have had more sinister intentions by appealing to the National Assembly? If so, why? And what were they? Or, for example, could he have possibly been saying "Thank you" to a Jew or acting off a bribe? Or is it also possible that at that time in French History religious tolerance and freedom were accepted as values?
Was this move for Jews a product of the time period (i.e. French Revolution) or part of a smaller "revolution" or perhaps even something specific to the one individual?
It's actually quite interesting. Dupont wants exactly what George Washington does, to treat all sects as equal citizens, not individuals. Another fascinating point is that Nepoleon's motives are so clear; attract everyone to that "single idea" and everyone will be happy. Why don't Nepoleon and the National Assembly, which clearly has power, see eye to eye? Also, does this have any correlation with why Dupont left France for America?
ReplyDelete-Aaron Zuckerman
Adrien-Jean-Francois Duport wrote, “I ask therefore that the decree of adjournment be revoked.” Can this be accurate? Duport was a deputy and it is said that his decree was passed because of the deputies disregarding anyone who tempted to disagree with him. Was this decree passed because Duports “question” was answered in his favor? Or did he just have the right people, his co-workers, on his team to allow his decree to be passed more easily?
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me from this article that the jews were treated like the Blacks of the 1950. How come jews weren't allowed to become citzen? Were they illegal citizen or were they just hated by the rest of the world? Was the constitution of america that was suppossed to make things fair not really meant for jews?
ReplyDeleteSorry for sending this a tiny bit late. working on college apps.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDuport writes "declared by your Constitution how all peoples of the earth could become French citizens and how all French citizens could become active citizens". Does the mentioned apply to all constitutions? For instance is an American more of a citizen if he or she exercises their right to bear arms?
ReplyDeleteIs a constitution the path to be a citizen or more of a guide line?
The person who is writing this decree sounds like he is supporting the Jews. He wants them to have a level of equality with the rest of the nation. I'm surprised that someone would try to stand up for the Jews at this time in 1791, which was a really hard time for the Jews. what made this decree be written ? was their an event that led to this decree?
ReplyDeleteZeke M.
What made Duport want to defend the jews? Did he choose them because they were an easy group to defend or did he actually have a connection to the Jews?
ReplyDeleteDavid Reiz
Why is Duport demanding that they listen to him? why not ask them nicely, or in a more polite, less straight forward way. Wouldnt they be more likely to listen to him if he spoke to them with respect?
ReplyDeletein this article he seems to say that prior to his argument jews were regarded by most as obviously not citizens where is it that the difference in idealogy comes between the french and the americans that the americans seem to think that it is obvious that americans are citizens
ReplyDeleteThe author is posing a momentous proposition for that time. Albeit modernly acceptable, this statement might have caused a firestorm. Was he aware of the huge reprecusions of his words. Did he recognize that it might have been wiser to start smaller, as opposed to requesting full rights for all, as he did? and furthermore he is very carefull not to mention human rights,was he ignoring women? or was this his attempt at restraint?
ReplyDelete