Robespierre And The American Revolution

The Reign of Terror, was it justified? A wife beheaded, a revolution , and thirty-five to forty thousand people killed in the countryside alone. It was all happening in France, starting in the year 1789. A man named Maximilien Robespierre and his countrymen have decided that they dislike the current government system and overthrow it. They are successful and try to turn it to democracy, but in order to keep the power they end up having to execute nearly all government officials. Later, the counter revolutionists throw them over, so was Robespierre justified? The reign of terror was not justified because of the way the government treated their people, How they restricted the citizens rights, and finally how they treated their “criminals”.

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

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

Maximilien Marie Isidore de Robespierre was born on May 6, 1758, in Arras, France. As the oldest of 4 children, he had a rather rough childhood considering he was raised by his grandparents. This is due to the death of his mother when Max was 6 and his father leaving the family near that time. Max’s education was at Lycée Louis-le-Grand in Paris. He graduated with a law degree in 1781. He made a decent wage as a lawyer in Arras.

Robespierre was honestly working for the good of the people. He once stopped 75 Girondins from being tried for signing a secret protest against their leaders’ arrests, knowing they would be executed (Hampson 139). Much of the public understood and loved Robespierre. When he was finally arrested, the prison guard refused to hold him (Gaxotte 223). Instead of fleeing, he returned to Paris where a crowd of his followers congregated. He absolutely forbid them to fight for him, as they were planning (Geib). His altruistic efforts suggest some outside force caused the change in his allowing of the more brutal manner of reformation, later, when the many thousands of people were executed. Jean-Jacques Rousseau may have influenced Robespierre with his strong nationalist views, being an important, and influential role-model for Robespierre. It is said that Robespierre slept with a copy of Rousseau’s Social Contract next to him (Halsall). Rousseau thought that it was the greatest of all sins to continue in life when one believes there is a better way (Searle). Robespierre knew there was another way; a republic, free of the uncaring rule of powerful monarchs. This idea may have encouraged Robespierre to press for reformation at all costs.

Maximilien Robespierre declared at the trial of King Louis XVI. “The King must die so that the nation can live.” Robespierre advocated the kings demise and with it the ways of the Ancien Régime. However, in an ironic twist of fate his words also foreshadowed his own rise and fall as the leader of the French Revolution. Known as “The Incorruptible”, or alternately “Dictateur Sanguinaire” Robespierre is a monumental figure of the French Revolution, but which was he? Was he the incorruptible revolutionist fighting to overthrow the Ancien Regime or a raging radical that implemented his own absolute tendencies under the cover of the revolution? When dissecting the dichotomy of Robespierre’s life and actions during the French Revolution and

Robespierre believed a new government could just be created from scratch, and he tried to change France the way he wanted, not the way the citizens of France wanted. Robespierre had new and unusual ideas with what to do with religion. Christianity in France has been a big part of their culture and identity. But, once France changed into a Republic, there were certain laws that wanted to eliminate Christianity in the country. Many civilians and members of the Church believed that this was an outrage and formed the counterrevolution. These people fought against military drafting and the laws that tried to end Christianity (Doc. C). The republic was being awfully hypocritical and was going against what they stated in the Declaration of the Rights

Maximilien Robespierre also known as “the Incorruptible”, is regarded as one of the most notorious figures of the French Revolution. He became involved in the Revolution in 1789, after he was elected into the Third Estate in the Estates General. He strongly advocated against tyranny but that would all change after he gained leadership of the Committee of Public Safety. France suffered from tyranny under Robespierre’s leadership, which would be known as the Reign of Terror, because of his flawed ideas and blinded perspective during the Revolution.

Starting the war, Robespierre held a firm belief of sovereignty and equality, to form a republic, and was against the death penalty, viewing it as an excessive punishment. But, as the war progresses his ideology begins to change, favoring the use of the guillotine and leading a society of terror.

Robespierre displayed his fall into true tyranny and narcissism when he gave himself the power to decided solely what is wrong and right and would persecute anyone who disagrees with him (Source D). Robespierre carried this power to such an extent that he would arrest anyone who went against him, his ideas, or the revolutions aims, or merely a difference of opinion. This further shows his great characteristic of narcissism, which led to his downfall as citizens, and fellow members would constantly feel unsafe and live in the constant fear of Robespierre’s persecution. This fear was also complimented by his ban of trials, which increased execution rates and flow (Source C). This would lead not only to the fear of being unfairly arrested without trial but furthermore, the fear of execution, among citizens and fellow members of Robespierre’s political

Robespierre and the French Revolution illustrates the formerly mentioned media institutionalised lack of ability to confront the true nature of violence whether or not in France over 2 hundred years ago, or at the streets of Britain nowadays, the systematic refusal to mirror upon the variations among violent symptoms and underlying social causes.

The constitution of 1793 , was the second constitution written and approved during the French Revolution , the Constitution was based on the Declaration of the rights of Man and of the Citizens of 1789. However, it was quickly overshadowed by the resurgence of the Committee of Public Safety in July, when some of the more radical Jacobin leaders, including Robespierre, installed themselves in charged of the committee and immediately began to make drastic changes. Some of the drastic changes as consequence of the abrupt Declaration was the Jacobin and Robespierre control over the region, Reign of Terror, and Robespierre’s Maximum implements ceiling on price.

When you look at the shift in policy after the execution of King Louis XVI you can see Robespierre's fear from withing take hold. When he speaks of “accelerating the hand of justice” this leads to diminishing much of the trial system when attempting to convict accused conspirators. The Law of Suspects (a decree not a law) drives this notion even firther, The National Convention of the French First Republic concluded that there needed to be a more effecient way of convicting traitors and that by requiring suspects

Who could argue with the values of Liberte, Egalite and Fraternite? It sounded so great, right? I am just going to be blunt. We seem to be further away from those values than we were before the revolution. We are living in a society in which terror is a weapon to keep the people in line. Even before King Louis was executed, terror seemed to be the only political weapon. In his writing about the Reveillon Riot, the Marquis de Ferrieres described the situation well: “All this makes one tremble for the unhappy kingdom. It is a web of horrors and abominations.” When the Reign of Terror began, many more people than just the king and queen lost their lives to the guillotine. And rather than feel that terror is an evil, the current leaders of this country think that terror is not only necessary but a virtue. As Robespierre said in his speech on The Republic of Virtue: “Terror is nothing other justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is therefore an emanation of virtue.” This is ironic because Robespierre used to be a pacifist, a supporter of animal rights and the like. I believe power has corrupted him and others like him.

The French Revolution was a time of civil war in France that was filled with the shed blood of many for one cause, to create a democratic government. An important figure that dominated the Committee of Public Safety, a political body that took control of France during the Reign of Terror, was a man named Maximilien Robespierre.