Reign Of Terror Justified Dbq Analysis

Justification does not mean there will be perfection. One of the biggest turnabouts in history would be The Reign of Terror. In the year 1793, Maximilien Robespierre declared an act called The Reign of Terror. This brought upon the French people heavily consequences for trivial things but it was sentenced with purpose. The chaos that Robespierre broght was truly a tragedy upon the French but it seems clouded by the bias of the statement, was the Reign of Terror, Justified? Thus asking the question was the Reign of Terror justified and the author believes it was. The past can not be repeated so the claim can not have decisive evidence but can be supported by historical proven facts by historians or people who lived through the French Revolution.

Though there are particular sections why it was unjustified, there can be an argument that states otherwise with the three decisive proof: the death rate among the people may have been in large numbers but successfully killed spies or traitors, human emotions such as fear can be manipulated into order, and in the end of it all, what did they achieve as a nation?
To begin with, the reason with the Reign of Terror justified was the amount of people who betrayed and spied the French were executed with purpose.

The death count was large in the range between 35,000 to 40,000 people, concluding that there are some who were guilty and deserved their punishment. It is impossible to call the executions pointless. “...Six patriots have fallen victim to this rabbles..” (Doc D) clearly argues that France’s corpses were not always carried out by executions but by themselves. It is true that the execution numbers were high, but how much did the French achieve that let it mold into consideration for later possibilities? This supports the claim as it was the people themselves whom they needed the protection thus creating suspicion and caution. Even the actions of the legislative party were going against their belief of “nature rights”, they still continued executions as they tried to protect themselves from further destruction. The National Assembly did contradicted themselves as the said “the aim of all [government]... is the preservation of the natural... rights of man. These are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression.” (Doc A) but the idea they were aiming for for was security of the

people.
Pursing the justification of the Reign of Terror, is that fear is one of the keys to holding people together. There are times that extreme measure has to come in order to bring cooperation among the people. True, there could of been better methods but the havoc created by France obtain the image of a “perfect nation”. A speech written by the whole who began the Reign of Terror, describes his point of view. He states that “in order to arrive to a peaceful reign of constitutional law, we must finish the war of liberty against tyranny and safely cross through the storms of the revolution: that is the goal of the revolution system which you have put in order..” (Doc G). This is the people as he and other believed in to hold France together, even if it meant to bring horror and bloodshed. Although, the war within France was enough to handle, what they had to battle at the borders were just as unpleasant. As the end of Battle of Valmy can to an end, the French still believed in their country, thus creating victory to them that lead to a goal they have been achieving. The terror encouraged people to stay together though the consequences where servers but the ending of the Revolution clarified their actions and how they were demonstrated.
Yet another reason why the Reign of Terror was Justified was the ending of the war. At the every end of all this chaos and troubles, what happened to France? It had won after a year of hardship and endurance of the people. The overwhelmed feeling when the words of “Robespierre is executed by guillotine.The Reign of Terror is declared over.” must gave a satisfactory cheer of triumph for the people. (Doc B). There were times where the government did have their true faults but in the end, they had build something greater than a mass of blood and unforgiveness. The French gave the people a stepping stone for the future. The Republic of France, gave the world a meaning of untrustworthiness to an extent of horror. Was the Reign of Terror justified by just creating an example of a failed democracy; yes it did but it gave up a better understanding of a nation’s view and carves a memento in history.
In the final analysis, was the Reign of Terror: Was It Justified? The argument that was written said yes, it was justified. Without the Terror recreating itself, one can never say that is the truth but there is evidence to back up the claim; the amount killed was high but did not necessarily mean that it was worthless, emotions over all can contain a nation who is struggling, and that though the Reign seemed to distant to end, they achieved what they fought for, a new government.