Owner Comments:
The medals struck at the Soho Mint predominantly commemorate noteworthy historical events or organizations, with almost no specific focus on a single individual. However, in stark contrast are the medals struck by order of the Monneron Brothers, intended to celebrate influential and historically significant French patriots. Unfortunately, this series was short-lived, with only two medals produced, one depicting Marie-Joseph-Paul-Yves-Roch-Gilbert du Motier Marquis de Lafayette and the other depicting Jean Jacques Rousseau. In researching medals such as these, collectors have the freedom to explore a wide range of topics that fall under the larger context of a notable figure such as Marquis de Lafayette. This facet of freedom seems most fitting considering Lafayette’s steadfast dedication to liberty, which gave rise to his fame and affection in America, but subsequently perpetuated his turbulent place within French history. Marquis de Lafayette lived a fascinating and somewhat tragic life. Although one could remark upon those extraordinary circumstances, I have opted to focus on his efforts in the American and French Revolutions in this brief write-up.
Historical Context:
The American Revolution
When discussing the American Revolution, it is easy to focus on marching armies, the tragedies that invariably accompany decisive battles, and the figures that led the charge. Despite our reflectively disproportionate focus on these facets, winning a war does not only require victory on the battlefield, which is a point the American forefathers understood well. There is no reasonable way to dismiss the power of both social and political influences on the outcome of the American Revolution. After all, the colonies declared and fought for independence from one of the most powerful kingdoms in the contemporary world. To have any hope of success, the Americans would have to win both the physical and the largely silent sociopolitical war. In this hidden war, the Americans made strategic moves to increase the legitimacy of their cause while the British downplayed it as a doomed rebellion.
The English military enjoyed a reputation as a well-oiled war machine, with a distinct advantage in training, weapons, and tactical experience. Perhaps even more importantly, the English were seen as a global powerhouse with wide-reaching influence that afforded them great respect. These social and political advantages afforded the English unquestionable legitimacy, which is something that the Americans would struggle with well beyond the end of the war. The English had many enemies, affording the Americans an opportunity to recruit young politically and economically connected foreigners who were eager to prove themselves on the battlefield against the formidable English military. The constant influx of well-connected foreigners added a sense of legitimacy to the American cause, which allowed them to grow their influence beyond their borders to secure additional funds, weapons, and soldiers. Notable figures such as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin made their argument clear for the social and political usefulness of these partnerships, which often resulted in the foreigner receiving a rank and title of an officer in the American forces (Kramer, 1981). Most of these men would eventually return to their homelands with little more than a fancy title and a few stories. In reality, they were given honorary titles with no real command opportunities. These foreign soldiers were a means to an end to obtain the goal of changing the global perspective on the American cause from a hopeless rebellion poised for defeat to a legitimate and conceivable victory. The well-established quid pro quo was simply a vehicle for social and political mobilization for all parties involved.
 |
For many, the nineteen-year-old Lafayette was at first seen as yet another powerful connection to be made. Unlike his contemporaries that would join the American ranks, Lafayette was a Marquis. The nature of his place within French society meant that he had a good amount of personal wealth and powerful connections that the Americans desperately sought to exploit to increase the legitimacy of their cause. Leibiger (2013) notes that Lafayette's reception was of the highest importance, and it demanded the personal attention of several notables such as Benjamin Franklin and George Washington. Upon his arrival and reception by Washington, congress commissioned Lafayette as a Major General. Much to Lafayette's displeasure, his new title was honorary, and he was given no troops to command. Underscoring the importance of his social status, he was referred to as The Marquis by all colonial forces. This fact further highlights the idea that he was worth far more to the American Revolution as a social and political symbol than a commanding officer on the battlefield (Kramer, 1981). Eventually, the Americans would view Lafayette as something more, and his role in the American Revolution evolved.
Lafayette’s general disposition towards the war and what he viewed as his role in progressing the American cause eventually changed the way the Americans thought of him. Unlike his fellow foreigners, Lafayette expressed through his actions a desire to learn, not teach (Kramer, 1981). Remember, the American forces did not share the same global perception of legitimacy as the English, which often resulted in foreign partners pushing European conventions, which implied that the American approach was feeble and ill-conceived. Lafayette’s disinterest in pushing these conventions and his lack of desire to gain personal fame and wealth from his service earned him the respect of Washington and so many other influential figures (Kramer, 1981). His disposition won him respect, but his understanding of the power of politics in warfare solidified his role in the American Revolution.
Lafayette was keenly aware that public opinion was critical to winning a war against a much better-equipped military. The American forces constantly encountered shortages of essential supplies such as food, medicine, and weapons. Many locals eschewed continental money in favor of English currency, making it more challenging to obtain the supplies needed. After all, the American forces could not forcefully take what they needed while arguing that they were fighting against a tyrant who stole what they wanted. This delicate position meant that the American forces needed to sway the social and political perceptions of the war in their favor to earn the support of the people who could help them both at home and around the globe.
The role of politics in warfare was not a consideration of other military leaders such as Comte de Rochambeau(1), who argued that politics had no place and those who thought otherwise should leave it to professional soldiers to get the job done (Kramer, 1981). Rochambeau’s approach to war meant that his engagement would be restricted to skirmishes that advanced the military agenda, but not necessarily the political agenda that was vital to resolve the supply chain issues that subdued the ability of the American forces. On the other hand, Lafayette, the sociopolitical star of the American cause, understood this delicate balancing act, and his actions on the battlefield reflected this. Lafayette's role would shift from an observer to a participant in September of 1777 at Brandywine when he was shot in the calf while organizing retreating troops (Leibiger, 2013). The wounds he suffered further cemented the respect he won earlier and signified to many that he was there to support the American cause. Lafayette had once again proven himself a competent and passionate patriot. Up to this point, Washington had kept Lafayette’s ambition of commanding troops of his own at bay; however, there was a genuine concern that continuing to do so may persuade Lafayette to turn away from the American cause and return to France (Leibiger, 2013). By December, he had a division of troops under his command and would go on to participate in several successful and politically savvy skirmishes.
Lafayette distinguished himself both on and off the battlefield, which only added to his globally recognized reputation and esteem. His partnership with the Americans could not have proven more fruitful for either party, and Lafayette returned to France in 1779, aiming to seize the opportunity to capitalize on his growing influence. Upon his return, Lafayette was greeted warmly in France as a champion of liberty (Leibiger, 2013). He was suddenly a beloved celebrity, and there is little doubt that his social and political status influenced the assistance provided to the Americans on behalf of the French Government. Lafayette returned to America by order of King Louis XVI in March of 1780, carrying a message that the French would supply six warships and 6,000 troops to help the Americans win the war. He would continue to prove himself a worthy battlefield commander during his campaign through Virginia in 1781. During which he continuously delivered political and military blows to the English forces. Kramer (1981) notes that Lafayette made a point to allow Cornwallis to suffer the disgrace of surrender if for no other reason than to demonstrate to the world that the English could not silence Virginia. Lafayette would once again return to France to seek aid for the Americans, eventually securing a substantial loan that helped end the war.
Lafayette, a young inexperienced Frenchman of noble birth, played a substantial role in the American Revolution. It is a shame that so many popular retellings of the story focus on his military exploits while simultaneously ignoring what he accomplished off the battlefield. His social status and political prowess undoubtedly influenced the American cause and, in doing so, afforded the American forefathers the ability to exert their influence both within and beyond their borders. It would be impossible to separate his military and sociopolitical influences on the outcome of the American Revolution; however, it is clear that his partnership with the Americans helped both sides achieve goals that otherwise were mere dreams. The memory of Lafayette lives on in America, and even to this day, over two centuries later, there is a sense of fondness when discussing his role in the American Revolution.
The French Revolution
Due to his role in the American Revolution, Lafayette became a herald of liberty for many. Perhaps this fact makes his role in the French Revolution so peculiar. Lafayette returned to France in 1782, but the political landscape had already started to change. I cannot help but wonder if Lafayette felt the early shutters of the French Revolution knocking at his door. The state of political affairs in France was bleak by the late 1780s, and the threat of a full-blown revolution seemed all but inevitable. Lafayette still believed in abolition, equal rights for French protestants, and full civil rights for French Jews, but he held steadfast in his belief that the monarch played a vital role in the French government (Bukovansky, 2009). In line with his experiences in the American Revolution, Lafayette argued for the need for a constitution to ensure equal rights; however, he argued for a constitutional monarchy. Lafayette found himself at odds with the two major political factions. The Monarchists who sought to preserve the current form of government felt Lafayette’s stance was weak. In contrast, the Republicans who wanted to overhaul the current government viewed him as part of a larger aristocrat conspiracy. Lafayette occupied a dangerous middle ground that lacked widespread support.
Unlike the American Revolution, Lafayette’s position in the French Revolution was turbulent. His middle-of-the-road stance was not popular, and although he did his best to apply the lessons learned while fighting alongside Washington, the consequences of his position nearly proved fatal. Bukovansky (2009) discusses a chain of events that would unfold, eventually culminating in Lafayette’s appointment as the commander of the National Guard. Things started to take a turn for the worse during his tenure in this command. On July 17th, 1791, a demonstration turned violent when Lafayette’s troops opened fire on a crowd of Republicans, resulting in many deaths. Although it is unclear who gave the order or what triggered the violence, Lafayette, as commander, was held accountable in the eyes of the Republicans. The following year the Tuileries Palace in Paris was overrun by revolutionaries resulting in several hundred deaths and widespread destruction. Lafayette, now the commander of the armée du Centre, unsuccessfully tried to rally his troops. The monarchy had fallen, and Lafayette was in grave danger as his middle-of-the-road stance alienated him from both main factions.
Seen as a traitor on all fronts, Lafayette and his wife, Adrienne de La Fayette, were imprisoned in Austria after a failed attempt to flee to Belgium in 1792. Beyond losing his estates, his mother-in-law, grandmother-in-law, and sister-in-law were executed at the guillotine (Bukovansky, 2009). Despite his fame and admiration in America, there was little hope of setting him free. However, thanks to Washington’s political connections and vast wealth, Adrienne was saved from the guillotine and eventually released (Leibiger, 2013). Due to an odd set of circumstances, Lafayette regained his freedom but only due to the action of a new powerful figure, Napoleon Bonaparte. As a condition of peace with Austria, Bonaparte demanded the release of Lafayette, and he was set free in the hands of the American consulate in September of 1797. The powers of France did not welcome Lafayette back with open arms. In fact, it would not be until 1800 that his civil rights and property were restored (Bukovansky, 2009). From here, he would live a relatively quiet life, returning to America with his son, George Washington Lafayette, as a revered hero before making his way back to France in 1825, where he received a warm welcome. Despite his advanced age, Lafayette would play a role in one final revolution, the July Revolution, in which he had a hand in declaring Louis Philippe King of France. Lafayette would pass at the ripe age of 76 in 1834. According to Bukovansky (2009), his death went largely unnoticed throughout France, with the only exception being Paris, where thousands of people paid tribute.
Lafayette’s stance on the French Revolution seems at odds with his actions during the American Revolution. Lafayette was a man who risked his life, fortune, and reputation to defend the ideals of a free nation but was otherwise incapable of doing the same to create a similar government for his beloved France. One potential explanation suggested by Kramer (1981) is that Lafayette viewed the ideals of the American Revolution through rose-tinted glasses. His understanding that the English government was corrupt, leading to the undue suffering of their subjects, especially in the American colonies, may have driven his support of the American cause. Although it should not be a surprise that a Frenchman would think the English government is corrupt, it is odd that a herald of liberty such as Lafayette would not seek the same rights for his people as he did the Americans. His firm support of a constitutional monarchy and for equal rights underscores the need for change, but it seems as though Lafayette did not see the two revolutions as being one of the same. Although Lafayette’s place in American history lives on in notoriety, his place in French history is far less pronounced.
Footnotes:
1. It is worth noting that, unlike Lafayette, Comte de Rochambeau was only in America because he was under direct orders from King Louis XVI to command the French expeditionary forces. Before he arrived in America, he was already a well-established career military leader (i.e., he was stuck in his ways).
1791 Marquis de Lafayette Medal |
Obverse:
The obverse depicts the uniformed bust of Lafayette facing left. His hair is in the traditional Whig style, with a large singular curl protruding from in front of his ear to the rear of his head. Most of his hair falls in a tightly wrapped ponytail secured by a bow with two loops and two loose ends. The upper loose end bisects the two bows while the lower loose end droops below. The ponytail droops behind his shoulder and rests behind his back, culminating in a large bud at the end. Dressed in a traditional military uniform, a medal rests upon his left breast. His left shoulder is adorned with an intricately engraved epaulette. At the tip of the bust, in substantially smaller letters, appears the engraver's name, “
DUMAREST, in the upright position. The legend, “
LAFAYETTE DEPUTE A L’ASS • NAT • CONSTITUANTE NE EN 1757”. is contained within two outer circles and a moderately wide rim.
Reverse:
The reverse depicts a wreath comprised of an oak branch on the left and a branch of holly on the right. The two are conjoined at the bottom center by a ribbon with one bow and two loose end. The left loose end wraps behind the stem of the holly branch while the loose end on the right falls under the end of the holly branch, but in front of the oak branch. Immediately above the bow are to lines, the top of which is substantially longer than the bottom. Just above, an inscription reading “
IL A COMMANDE LA GARDE NATIONAL PARISIENNE EN 1789 1790 ET 1791” appears in four lines. The reverse legend falls just outside the wreath and reads, “
COLLECTION DES FRANCAIS PATRIOTES”. This legend is enclosed within two outer circles and a moderately wide rim.
Edge: Plain
Size: 35 mm
Notes:
Tungate (2020) notes that the obverse was engraved by Rambert Dumarest, while the reverse was completed by Noel-Alexandre Ponthon. Purportedly, 2,699 of these medals were produced, but that number does not distinguish between originals and Soho restrikes. The Lafayette medals are common, but this piece is in a league of its own as it once resided in the Boulton Family Collection. Although graded a mint state piece, this example has proof-like watery fields and a pleasing chestnut brown color. Those unfamiliar with the series may balk at the numerous imperfections, but this medal is as struck. The plain edge of this piece signifies that it is a later restrike using retouched dies. This would help explain the numerous missing details in the legends and main designs. These details were likely obliterated due to over-polishing of the dies. Furthermore, minor rust spots can be found on the obverse and reverse, especially on Lafayette’s cheek, indicating that the dies were improperly stored at one point and revamped for later production.
References:
Kramer, L. S. (1981). America's Lafayette and Lafayette's America: A European and the American Revolution. The William and Mary Quarterly, 38(2), 228-241.
Leibiger, S. (2013). George Washington and Lafayette: Father and Son of the Revolution. In R. M. S. McDonald (Ed.), Sons of the Father: George Washington and His Protégés (pp. 210-231). University of Virginia Press.
Bukovansky, M. (2009). Legitimacy and Power Politics: The American and French Revolutions in International Political Culture. Princeton University Press.
Tungate, S. (2020) Matthew Boulton and The Soho Mint: copper to customer. Worcestershire: Brewin Books.
Vice, D. (1995). A fresh insight into Soho Mint restrikes & those responsible for their manufacture. Format Coins, Birmingham, 3-14.
Interesting links:
https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/marquis-de-lafayette/?gclid=CjwKCAjw77WVBhBuEiwAJ-YoJGC7OJIlz1CTNflkJbhlbQ0vkRpIoJwBHdpGC5c-2tBbdzzg1iozexoCvgEQAvD_BwE
https://about.lafayette.edu/mission-and-history/the-marquis-de-lafayette/