Principles Of Domestic Policy

On February 5,1794 Robespierre wrote a speech justifying the use of terror in the French government. He talks about how if people themselves are corrupted then liberty is lost and you might as well start over. Robespierre would stop at nothing to get rid of anyone who opposed the revolution. “it rallies all vicious men against us, all those who in their hearts contemplated despoiling the people and all those who intend to let it be despoiled with impunity, both those who have rejected freedom as a personal calamity and those who have embraced the revolution as a career and the Republic as prey.” (Use of Terror) He is saying that the anti revolutionists rally all these angry men together and try to hurt France as

The French Revolution is arguably the bloodiest period in French history, with men such as Maximilien Robespierre leading the country into a situation of state sponsored terror. Originally being quite a liberal thinker inspired by the works of Rousseau, Robespierre quickly gained a reputation for being a radical throughout the course of the Revolution, especially during the Terror. Early on terror was justified as a means to root out foreign and domestic enemies of the Revolution, however; once the foreign threat had been taken care of it became increasingly difficult for Robespierre to rationalize his use of terror to bring about a supposed Republic of Virtue. In his speech, the “Justification of the use of Terror” which he presented to

Eisenhower implemented many domestic policies in this great nation that had a good effect among the people and their future. He continued and picked up Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal programs. He also continued Harry Truman’s Fair Deal programs in the United States. Eisenhower also created the Interstate Highway System that is considered to be the single largest public works in the U.S. During Eisenhower's first term, Republican Senator Joseph McCarthy’s anti-Communist crusade the violated the civil liberties of many citizens, Eisenhower refrained from publicly criticizing McCarthy, He ended McCarthyism by refusing to release notes of a meeting between him and McCarthy. Eisenhower would not allow administration personnel to testify at the McCarthy

Foreign policy is how one nation deals with many other nations. The book talks about Ronald Regan trying to create foreign policy and then here you have congress like a bunch of ants floating on a log down river each ant thinking there in charge. Foreign policy from the way “How Congress Works’” says is set up by the president and not really. Having congress get involved makes foreign policy way more complicated then needed. Harry Truman was one man who was asked a question. A random person wanted to know who created foreign policy? His answer was that he did. Now this leads to a important example of foreign policy. This leads to John F. Kennedy and we all know what major foreign policy deal he had to deal with. It was the Cuban missile crisis.

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

France was in a huge amount of debt, poor people were starving, and there was an unfair tax system (B.E). Therefore, France needed to find a way to improve society and its living conditions (B.E.). Examples of this is France abolishing all slavery in the country and destroying the counterrevolution (Doc A). The French government needed to make change in the country and in order to promise that, they had to eliminate the rebels (Doc A). Another example is, counterrevolutionary activity was taking place and the government sent out troops to break up the gatherings but, the gatherings did not settle down which led to the government using excessive force (Doc D). If the government did not act on the rebels, the region would fall into the rebels hands (Doc D). Therefore, the Reign of Terror is the only way to bring back peace into the region (Doc D). In addition, the government declares that social protection is given only to peaceful citizens (Doc G). The government would not use force on a citizen if they were peaceful, which is reasonable because it protects other people from being harmed by the violent protesters. The Reign of Terror ties in with Machiavelli’s beliefs, “The end justifies the means”. Thus, France reached a better society than they started which; it deletes the entire negative things they did to get to that

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.

During the period of The French Revolution, Maximilien Robespierre, French lawyer and politician, was probably one of the most influential and well – known figures. I selected him because I found his personality interesting, and wanted to know more about him. To this day, among historians, Robespierre is a very controversial figure. Some support his actions during the Reign of Terror, while others do not. Furthermore, in his early days as a politician, he was known as ‘The Incorruptible’ due his strict moral values and ideas, yet, during the Reign of Terror, he was responsible for the executions of thousands. I found the contrast between his two ideologies really shocking, and wanted to know more about historians’ perspective of him, so I decided to research and do this project on Robespierre.

Eisenhower’s presidency, overall, was effective. Despite the many negative effects his foreign policies had on society, they also had positive aspects to them, allowing for some sort of balance to be created and set forth. Moreover, Eisenhower’s domestic policies was also contributed to his overall presidency’s effectiveness. For instance, he had created multiple civil rights acts to address certain humans rights such as voting. This was one of the major conflicts that many wanted to be adjusted and Eisenhower did do so through the multiple acts put in place. Adding on, another domestic policy would be the Federal Aid Highway Act, where roads and highways were developed, helping the nation’s economy and transportation. Both of these policies

During the French revolution, each class thought about what they were going through and not what the other social classes were enduring. This is why the leaders of the revolution like Robespierre thought of the people in the other classes as their enemies and not other humans with different opinions. When leaders thought of the other people as their enemies, they were willing to do anything to defeat them. Most leaders used terror to get people on their side and defeat their enemies. (Robespierre’s speech on the justification of the use of

Twenty thousand to forty thousand died; it is still unknown exactly how many people were lost through the blood drenching event of the Reign of Terror.[Footnote] Throughout the French revolution, specifically the eleven month, 1793-1794 Reign of Terror, revolutionary leaders, such as Maximilien Robespierre believed in enforcing fear to resolve the instability of France. “Terror is nothing else than swift, severe, indomitable justice; it flows, then, from virtue”-Maximilien Robespierre.[Footnote] This period in history signified great atrocities of massacres, and a time where fear was evoked within every French civilian. The National Convention of France was a great factor in encouraging the start of the Reign of Terror; they continued on

“Virtue, without which terror is destructive; terror, without which virtue is impotent” (Zizek). Maximilien Robespierre said this in a speech when people were starting to question his judgment. He believed that to be only virtuous was difficult, and without some terror added in, the world would go into turmoil as no one would follow their leader. A leader has to be strong and forceful, and sometimes even terrifying to get their point across, or to get people to follow them. Robespierre always wanted what was best for France and was willing to do anything to get it, even if that meant causing harm to the people of France. He felt that as long as the outcome of his hard work came with the results he wanted,

Although the aspirations and goals of states are often motivated by external political pressures, analysis of recent foreign policy decisions demonstrates how internal political forces can play equally crucial roles in the pursuit and execution of these objectives. Thus, it would be invalid to claim that domestic politics and the nature of regimes play minor roles in either the goals a state pursues or the means it employs to reach them. By understanding how the diffusion of power in governments affect policy decisions, one can develop increased awareness of the linkages that exist between the internal pressures of domestic politics and the external forces of foreign politics.

The way states interact with each other effects not only their domestic economy but the global economy. What is the best method for states to approach the global market; should states accept the capitalist free market or utilize different models that are out there?