French Revolution Dbq

Robespierre thought that anybody who did not make contributions to the revolution is the enemy of the revolution. The law toward suspect established by Robespierre stated that anyone that performed “counterrevolutionary” action, which means did not support the Jacobin Club or resist laws established by the National Convention, should be considered enemy of the revolution and should be executed. The intentions of these policies are to reduce influences of conterrevolutinists in and out of the country. Before Louis XVI was executed, he united with armies with Austria and Prussia which are both ruled in monarchy to fight against people involved in riots in France. This union was considered treason of Louis XVI against his own people and later

on put Louis on guillotine. This law was in purpose of preventing and extinguishing other potential threats of revolution in the country. However, this law was mainly used as tools for politicians to eradicate their own enemies and repress people in cities that were not willing to accept rules of Robespierre due to the recognition of irrationality of his law, as the article Reign of Terror in History in Context mentioned: “The Terror was most severe in areas of civil war and counterrevolution, and in some of the frontier departments. In approximately one-third of the eighty-three departments the Terror claimed fewer than ten victims.

Seventy percent of the death sentences were handed down in just five departments. In some areas the Terror was particularly harsh. In Nantes, near the center of the Vendée rebellion and also a city sympathetic to the federalist revolt, Jean-Baptiste Carrier and local militants ordered the drowning of three thousand suspected counterrevolutionaries. In Lyon, a city with a reputation for royalist sympathies and also a federalist center, nearly two thousand were executed, some by guillotine and others shot down by cannon. Toulon, Marseille, and Bordeaux—cities that resisted the National Convention in the summer of 1793—all suffered three hundred or more executions during the Terror.” The policy was necessary in 1793 due to other interference done by counterrevolutionary groups from foreign countries intended to obstruct the course of revolution. However, after these threats were solved and when the terror needed to be alleviated, Robespierre continued his

terror. He mentioned in his speech, “If the basis of popular government in peacetime is virtue, the basis of popular government during a revolution is both virtue and terror; virtue, without which terror is baneful; terror, without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing more than speedy, severe and inflexible justice; it is thus an emanation of virtue; it is less a principle in itself, than a consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing needs of the patrie.” The ambiguity of the speech made other people in the club suspect the intention of Robespierre, due to the scruple of being victims of his further Reign of Terror. They reached a consensus to execute Robespierre for their own good.
In The article Robespierre and the Terror in History Today which is a magazine of credible history articles, written by Marisa Linton, Stated: “He came to the conclusion that in order to establish this ideal republic one had to be prepared to eliminate opponents of the Revolution.” She argued from Robespierre’s view point in terms of his ambition and personal experience with other monarchy groups and counterrevolutionary powers to justify his aim in his rule.

The article stated “He could be accused, justly, of political ambition, but he himself did not see this as inconsistent with his dedication to the Revolution. He had an unshakable belief that his own aims coincided with what was best for the Revolution. He was a man of painful sincerity. He was not a hypocrite. He really did believe that the Terror could sustain the republic of virtue.” He published a journal in 1793 and argued the revolution must return to its original purpose, which in his mind was to build a democracy and destroy anything that held back the process of it, according to treason of Louis XVI, the terror was necessary to prevent further conflict with other powers in disadvantage of the Jacobin Club. Her argument toward Robespierre was similar with mine in terms of his intentions and his position in the series of events before the revolution that led to his style of ruling and justification of

it.
Robespierre was not a hypocrite. He saw things he did as thing must be done to complete the revolution. He was never the only man in power, nor the only starter of terror, he should be considered as a villain as a lot of articles had claimed him to be. His influence on the revolution was vital. France needed a person to destroy other counter forces to benefit the people and the revolution. Robespierre was just the one being another victim of contending power between different groups.