Was the reign of terror of Robespierre justified?

Answer 1

Absolutely not. The French Revolution occurred because France was bankrupt. King Louis XVI called the Estates General into session to deal with an economic crisis that was in part not of his making, and to some extent could be justified. First, much of the French debt was due to Louis XIV's endless wars and vastly overextravagant palace built at Versailles. Louis XVI had incurred great debt in helping the American Colonies win their independence from France's foe Great Britain.

The main folly of Robespierre was intolerance and arrogance. Robespierre believed a new government could just be created from scratch. The American Revolution totally differed from Robespierre, it had checks and balances, and saw that government needed containment. Robespierre was anti-God, he tried to establish man as the supreme. He failed. His reign of terror created a bloodbath that made most of France feel insecure.

Then Robespierre learned the man who lives by the sword, dies by the sword. It became necessary to execute Robespierre to stop the chaotic Reign of Terror, which was much more a travesty than Louis XVI's rule ever had been.

Answer 2

The Reign of Terror came out of a number of sources but perhaps most important was Robespierre's interpretation of Rousseau's Social Contract especially the concept of a General Will. However, Robespierre's interpretation was incorrect and there can be no justification for the mass executions that occurred under his rule.

Rousseau stated that "Man will be forced to be free" by following the General Will of a society. However, the General Will is just that; it is the desire of the society. By claiming to represent the General Will of all of France Robespierre is in major error. No one individual can personify the General Will. (It is worth noting that Robespierre was not the last to use this concept to justify dictatorship).

Since Robespierre saw himself as the General Will of France personified it was necessary to do anything to defend the Revolution and "force" France "to be free." Hence, for him the guillotine was necessary and justified to bring about the freedom of a Republic without monarchy, class, and religion.

In reality Robespierre was disconnected from reality and trying to force too much change upon a society that did need economic and governmental change but did not want their entire lives uprooted from their norms. The excessive and gratuitous violence forever stains Robespierre and blots out many of his positive contributions such as moving against slavery and expanding voting rights.

Answer 3

This Site Might Help You.

RE:
Was the reign of terror of Robespierre justified?

Answer 4

No. Although there were many opponents of the Revolution within France and the constant threat of invasion from hostile neighbours, Robespierre's terror was motivated by paranoia not political neccessity.

In the end, it was also politically counter-productive. It was opposition to the excesses of the terror which turned the people against Robespierre. The terror was a self-defeating policy and, therefore, unjustifiable.

Answer 5

That is debatable. From the viewpoint of the peasants who were exploited, starved and had their suffering ignored by the monarchy. It was not only justified, but necessary.

From the viewpoint of the ruling classes, it was nothing but outright murder.

Take the storming of the Bastille for instance, French history celebrates the day as a national holiday. (July 14) It is known as Bastille Day. However many historians view this as a propaganda tool used by the revolutionaries, to promote their cause.

In fact the Bastille was a prison that was used to imprison, torture and execute political prisoners, or anyone who a dissenting view that did not support the upper or ruling classes. Voltaire and "The Man in the Iron Mask" were two of it's notable prisoners. It was the symbol of the oppression of the common French citizen by the aristocracy.

The justification tends to come from ones personal ideology. Whether one believes in an "eye for an eye", or one believes in vanquishing the defeated. Certainly from the viewpoint of the peasant participants it was only returning the same type of justice that had been applied to them. But from the viewpoint of the rulers of Europe, it was the unthinkable. It was even considered barbaric that the ruling class should be judged and sentenced to death by the peasants.

The government derives its power from its people or "subjects". Whether it is a monarchy, republic or dictatorship. It's power comes from its people. As long as a governing body considers the plight of all of who it represents, it maintains the balance required to exist. When you have arrogance displayed like that of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette you breed anger, frustration and eventually revolution. As in any revolution it is the victorious that deem what was justified at the time.

Hindsight is 20/20, but history has shown that rulers or leaders that are sent into exile sometimes return with revenge in mind. Napoleon and the Ayattollah Rouhollah Khomeini are two examples that I can think of off of the top of my head. So fear of reprisal probably caused much of the killing to be done during the revolt. To the victors it was justified.

Answer 6

No, of course not. The butcher of thousands of innocents without even the human right and decency to a trial to defend themselves is nothing more than murder. If you were even suspected of being against the revolution, you will be sent to the guillotine.

In fact, there were so many who were condemned that it was timed so that one person's head gets chopped off every few minutes by one account.