Justification of the Use of Terror: How it Ultimately Led to the Downfall of Maximilien Robespierre

The French Revolution began in 1789 as an attempt, by the revolutionaries, to form a new government that would give the people more liberty, equality and value people’s rights. Between 1793 and 1794 the government used extreme ways to achieve their goals. This period of time, led by Robespierre, was called the reign of Terror because between 20,000-40,000 french people were killed by the government forces. The Reign of Terror was not justified for three reasons:The external and internal threat did not deserve it, they denied natural rights against people who opposed them and the methods of the Terror were too extreme.

The radical turning point of the revolution, marked by the Reign of Terror, was an atmosphere of mass executions and imposed paranoia, with more than ten thousand “counterrevolutionaries” (vaguely defined, which at the end turned out to be anyone with dissent) sent to death under the Law of Suspects. Robespierre himself states that “Terror is nothing but prompt, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue… The government of the revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny”. “Severe and inflexible”, as justified by Robespierre, the revolution needed a push in order to reach its goals. France under the committee's total control sent anyone with dissent to the guillotine because they were considered to be a threat to the new government, which ironically named itself “for the people”. An anonymous eyewitness during the reign commented on the Reign of Terror collection of authentic narratives that “It seemed as if their blind fury was particularly directed against the weakest and most amiable.The loveliest, the youngest, and the most interesting females, were dragged in crowds into this receptacle of misery, whence they were led, by dozens, to inundate the scaffold” (325). The sickening extent of human toll

With all of the chaos and commotion going on with the Revolution, a sense of victory without the people was impossible. Robespierre once said, "The domestic danger comes from the bourgeois; to defeat the bourgeois we must rally the people." This concept helped to create a defense policy that rested on the Sansculottes and the middle bourgeoisie, this of which Robespierre became that symbol (Soboul 56). The Jacobins and Sansculottes forced this revolutionary of national defense upon the French leadership and upper class. This is where Robespierre 's villainous side begins to emerge. Upon implementation of this strategy, overthrow and mass executions began to appear.

Robespierre had intended to rid France of any people that were considered a threat to the revolution through the Reign of Terror, but his actions were not necessary for France to progress. His intentions to overthrow the monarchy under Louis XVI and replace it with a new utopian republic were reasonable because, with a reformed republic, he could establish the principle stating, “the ‘rights of man’ should extend to all men – including the poor, and the slaves in the colonies” (Linton). He relentlessly advocated for equality within the working class, also known as the sans culottes, and fought for the abolishment of rigid class systems between the three estates. This allowed for him to gain a positive reputation with civilians who were mistreated within the Third Estate and obtain reverence from the Jacobins. Robespierre’s first order of business to purify France and progress the revolution began with the trial of Louis XVI. Originally, it had been known that Robespierre “was for a long time a vehement opponent of the death penalty” (Linton), so it was unexpected when he began to advocate for the King’s death. His change of opinion occurred after witnessing how Louis had committed treason through attempting to escape an unstable France which branded him as a traitor to the revolution. In his speech arguing against allowing the King to be given a trial, Robespierre claimed “yes the penalty of death generally is a crime...it can be justified only in cases when it is necessary for the safety of individuals or the social body...Louis must die, because the country must live” (“Maximilien”). It was this trial that became the root to which Robespierre’s terror stemmed from. He speculated that “...in order to defend the Revolution against those who would destroy it, the shedding of blood was justified” (Linton). From here on out, his philosophy of the ends

Sources A and B support the claim established by contemporaries and historians that Robespierre was “incorruptible”, however Robespierre was also despotic, extreme, and radical. Robespierre’s strong opinions, extremism, and despotism support that he was not easily persuaded or corruptible. Source A shows Robespierre saying “the sword that gleams in the hands of the heroes of liberty resembles those in the hands of the henchmen of tyranny”. This statement supports that the government was despotic, which shows that Robespierre was a brutal leader not easily persuaded or corrupted. His statement, “Let the despot govern by terror his brutalised subjects; he is right, as a despot” supports that Robespierre had very strong opinions, showing that

Revolutions are often started as a response to an unjust form of government, and the Reign of Terror’s new revolutionary government was no exception. Although the revolutionary government was meant to replace a tyrannical government, it quickly turned into the dictatorial government it tried to replace and in many cases stepped far outside of the bounds of lawful or just action. During late 18th century France in the time period between the execution of King Louis XVI and the execution of Maximilien de Robespierre, the Reign of Terror senselessly guillotined thousands of people. Conditions in France in 1793 and 1794 were not serious enough to justify the revolutionary government’s response due to the response to external threats, response to internal threats, and the extreme methods deployed.

As more peoples blood is split to gain the rights not extended to them, the Terror grows becoming more and more gruesome. The French revolution began in late 1789 to obtain the rights that every citizen in born with. The motto of the French was liberty, equality, or death and the price to be paid for the civil liberties was blood. The revolutionary leader Robespierre and journalist Marat explained the more blood the better so that was what raged the people and started the Reign of Terror. Were the values expressed by the French Revolution necessary though? Even though, the French Revolution saw the Terror as a sign to create peace and restore a new France it was not justified because the extremities of the internal and external threats

The French Revolution was based on an assortment of Enlightenment ideals. French philosophers, including Voltaire and Rousseau led the revolution leading up to the revolution, so to speak, coming up with progressive ideals as to government, social structure, and the nature of people. Indeed, the ideals which the revolution was fought in the name of progressed throughout France and, eventually, Europe. Though the revolution took wrong turns along the way, the ideals which it was based on never wavered. Even during the heart of his Reign of Terror, Robespierre spoke of a state where each citizen wants to do good by his country. This shows Robespierre with an unwavering commitment to the state, an ideal which came out of the Enlightenment. Though he may have carried out his beliefs in a gruesome and perhaps wrong way, his ideals were the same as the Enlightenment philosophers: make the state better for all to live in.

Just like John Wilson Croker, 19th-century historian said, "Of no one of whom so much has been written is so little known,”. Historians such as Fouché and Merlin think of Robespierre as a “bloodthirsty tyrant”. Fouché said, “he (Robespierre) had an unquenchable thirst for the blood of his colleagues”. Historian, Peter Kropotkin also has a similar view of Robespierre. In his book, Great French Revolution (1911), he wrote that Robespierre was a “fanatic”, who “to establish his authority over men’s minds, was ready, if necessary, to pass over the dead bodies of his opponents”. On the other hand, historians such as George Rudé and Albert Soboul support Robespierre’s decisions. In Rudé’s opinion, Robespierre was not a ruthless killer, but instead a competent judge, able to differentiate between the counter-revolutionaries and those who had just been misguided. Historian Mathiez has gone as far as relieving Robespierre of any blame by saying that he was a “victim of his time”. The extreme polarity between historians’ views on Robespierre shows us how obscure his personality

In “On the Moral and Political Principles of Domestic Policy,” Maximilien Robespierre claims that terror is needed to get rid of their enemies, which lead to running a good government. Robespierre’s speech is made to persuade the National Assembly that terror was a vital part of running a government. Overall, I found “On the Moral and Political Principles of Domestic Policy” a brilliant way to convince the National Assembly to use terror because he gives many reasons as to why he believes that terror is a good thing.

During the year of 1793, Maximilien Robespierre was appointed by the Committee of Public Safety (Document B) to bring all the chaos that the French Revolution caused to a close, but Robespierre had his own agenda. As of September 5, 1793 Robespierre did just that and declared “Terror the order of the day;” beginning of Reign of Terror. As stated in document G, Robespierre

Kate Connolly Mrs. Collesano AP Global- Period 1 12/3/2017 Maximilien Robespierre played a significant role in the French Revolution that changed the course of the restructuring of France. He was a leading political figure that gained more power and influence throughout the events leading to the development of the revolution. The events that led to his domination were history altering events for the history of France. Robespierre’s goal was to rid France of anyone who seemed like a threat to him by using terror and death. He had many points that were used to justify why exactly the Terror was used to help the revolution.

In this essay I shall try to find whether the Terror was inherent from the French revolutions outset or was it the product of exceptional circumstances. The French revolution is the dividing line between the Ancien Regime and the modern world. After France the hierarchy that societies of the time had been founded on began to change and they began to sweep away the intricate political structures of absolute monarchy, but however to achieve this was the Terror absolutely necessary? And was it planned/ or was it just the extraordinary circumstances, which the French had lead themselves into once they had deposed of Louis the

Robespierre was the main person to implement the laws he put forth.[Footnote] He believed in solving all his problems through violence. Those who were born to a particular family, having certain opinions, or simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time, would fall victim to him. Although Robespierre was obsessed with violence, he never actually performed acts himself, unless assured he would succeed, he’d have other people to do his work for him. The most common device used to punish people was the guillotine. Robespierre used other methods at times; he’d burn, hack, stab, shoot, and even cannonade a person. Those he objected, or had been his enemy would soon be imprisoned, and eventually executed. He was relentless and ordered people dead with no trial, killing people without proving or even knowing if they were truly “guilty”. He believed the mass murders he was responsible for were justified.

The Royal Family of France’s attempted escape on June 20th, 1791 made many people very unhappy with the King. The mob, ever ready to exercise the uncontrolled Rights of Men, made a mock parade of the King’s Arms in the market places, and, dashing them and the figure of a crown to the ground, they trampled upon them, crying out, “Since the King has abandoned what he owed to his high situation, let us trample upon the ensigns of royalty” (Ascherson 48)! The Royal Family not only lost many of its followers through their attempted escape, but also because King Louis XVI kept making bad decisions, ones that had no benefit to France or its people. The people wanted someone who would lead them into a revolution and change France for the better, not because they wanted the power, but because they believed in France and wanted it to become a great nation. That man was Robespierre, who after the flight of the King followed the Jacobin club in its move toward republicanism. He called for universal male suffrage and the end of property qualifications for voting and office holding (Blumberg 290). Robespierre wanted to make France a republic, a government for the people and by the people, a country where everyone had the freedoms and rights they deserved. In January of 1793, Robespierre voted on whether or not he thought that King Louis should be executed for his actions. At the Convention on the trial