A city is legally put in a state of siege during a sedition.

We can put the nation in a state of siege in case of external danger co-existent with internal conspiracy.
By what absurd abuse of liberty can a state be constrained to tolerate on a foreign soil gatherings of citizens armed against itself, which it would not tolerate in its own land?
And if these gatherings should be culpable without, why should the state be interdicted from shutting up those roads which lead emigrants to these gatherings?
A nation defends itself from its foreign enemies by arms, from its internal foes by its laws.

To act otherwise would be to consecrate without the country the inviolability of conspiracies which were punished within: it would be to proclaim the legality of civil war, provided it was mixed up with foreign war, and that sedition was covered by treason.

Such maxims ruin a whole people's nationality, in order to protect abuse of liberty by certain citizens.

The Constituent Assembly was so wrong as to sanction such.