Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Causes of the revolution essay
Why the american revolution is justified
Causes of corruption essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Causes of the revolution essay
Do the actions ever justify the end result? The Reign of Terror, the revolution lead by Maximilien Robespierre, began on January 21, 1793 when King Louis XVI and his wife were guillotined due to the way they had led the government into a financial crisis and as a result when Robespierre took over with his radical new government 20,000-40,000 people were brutally executed. So was this radical period in France really necessary or was it just mass killings with little progress. The Reign of terror was not justified because of the threats against the revolution, the methods used by the revolution were not justified, and the ideals of the revolution were not justified. The first reason the Reign of Terror was not justified was because the inside/outside threats against the revolution didn’t warrant it. The Prussians and Australians were fighting against the revolution to keep their king and to not have the ideas of the revolutions (Doc C) so in turn Robespierre declared a military draft where all adult males would be forced by the Levee en Masse where the vendee region in france were totally against (Doc B). Rightfully so as well considering the fact that when Robespierre declared for the draft the threat had practically been stopped and so there was no real need for the draft and in turn no need for the Reign of Terror. It also proves the However the Reign of Terror is absolutely not justified due to the inside/outside threats, the harsh methods that were used, and the ideals the government had put in place. With all this mind this shows that this style of radical government is bad and corrupts easily and therefore should not be used in today's
In September 1791, France achieved the movement of freeing and outlawing slavery. In turn, Haitian slaves were inspired to do the same by revolting against French plantation owners. This transformative movement of 100,000 slaves was led by Toussaint L’Ouverture; unfortunately, he died before experiencing Haiti’s separation from France in 1804. However, along the way of success of both revolutions, a toll occurred on the numerous lives lost. The Reign of Terror in France was created as a way to protect the republic from its internal enemies, but instead 16,000 people were guillotined. Many documents were shown to be describing the execution of the Reign of Terror to be gruesome and wrongful such that J.G. Milligen stated, “The process of execution was also a sad and heartrending spectacle”, in The Revolutionary Tribunal. Milligen continued to describe the vivid scene of the execution, but this was only one event and many others have died in the fall of the Bastille and the attack on the royal palace. Haiti has also lost many lives as an outcome of the revolutions especially in the slave revolts and battles with French soldiers sent by Napoleon. In addition, the Haitian Revolution leader L’Ouverture died in captivity in France. Both of these revolutions were known to have successfully achieved its goals, but it was chaotic and
In 1789, the French people began to stand up to their current monarchical government in order to obtain rights and laws that they felt they deserved. The Reign of Terror followed after the Revolution and seemed to stand for the complete opposite of what the people had previously stood up for. The Reign of Terror began in 1793 and ended in 1794 due to the decapitation of Maximilien Robespierre. The Reign of Terror can be explained as a time period in France when many counter revolutionaries were killed because of their traditional beliefs. Counter revolutionaries believed in preserving the ways of the monarchy, but since the majority of people thought otherwise, these opposing beliefs led to death. The French government did not have good reason to conduct such drastic measures against those who challenged the Revolution.
making laws that abolish christianity is insane and trying to control an individual’s religion is very unfair and controlling for the new french government to do. Abolishing Sunday worship, Christmas, and Easter is a horribly crude thing for a revolutionary to do (Doc. C). France Representatives also took a cropper crucifix which was on the altar and carried it mockingly, upside down on a cart, offering it to passers-by to sit on (Doc. C). In Vendee, historians estimate that anywhere between 80,000 and 500,000 French people on both sides died in 1793 (Doc. C). Townspeople fought fiercely against a military draft called levee en masse and against laws to try to abolish Christianity in France (Doc. C). These pieces of evidence display that the Reign of Terror was in no way
Aside from giving the guillotine a purpose, the Reign of Terror stands as a necessity in the story of French independence. It might not have been the proudest of times, but the Reign began on a strong premise: holding together a new government by purging the bad apples for the betterment of the whole cart. While the Reign of Terror developed into an overly excessive bloodshed, it was justified by the war stricken circumstances and necessity for the support of the ongoing revolution. Despite the extreme heights the Reign of Terror reached, it was necessary to maintain the fragile presence of the government and preserve the new liberty a majority of the population had been denied before. In a 1793 letter from Vendée —a major counterrevolutionary hub— local government was fending off on-going riots and rebellion while being invaded from the north by Prussia.
The horrendous acts of the Jacobin leaders during the Reign of Terror led to many unfortunate deads and crimes. Robespierre was a power hungry tyrant, he was unforgiving. He killed Louis and thousands of others because he had become paranoid. His proposal of Republic of Virtue left the people hungry and angry. He also tried to protect the revolution but the plan backfired. All together, these horrible acts prove that the tyrants were extremely power hungry and blood
The French Revolution, beginning in 1789, was a lengthy process in which the people of France took over the government and instituted a Republic (Chambers). The overarching goal of the Revolution was to place the power of government in the hands of the people. For two years, whilst France was facing internal disorganization and external wartime threats, the government was run by a war dictatorship under Maximilien Robespierre, the head of the Committee of Public Safety (“Reign of Terror”). Amid much internal suspicion and fear, the Reign of Terror began. Much of France was politically divided, and Robespierre’s method for keeping the government stable in a time of crisis involved severe penalties for any suspected of plotting against the new government (Chambers). Soon the accusations began to fly and a handful of people convicted and killed for treason became thousands. Many of the cases turned into the accuser’s word versus the accused, and a government preoccupied with bigger issues often did not care to look into these cases, simply convicting the accused, supposedly to promote a sense of unity and control to the citizens of France, and to forewarn anyone who did attempt treasonous deeds (Chambers). Eventually, Marie Antoinette, guilty of no crime other than marrying the former king, was executed on the grounds of treason (“French Revolution: The Reign of Terror”). Many thought this was taking a step too far. The former Queen was well-respec...
Maximilien Robespierre became obsessed with this passion to create equality within France and to abolish the segregation that he began to be worshiped by others and seen as a beacon of hope. They both hoped that the Tribunal would bring peace to France. It would crush the Royalists and quiet mob by reassuring that the enemies of the revolution would be punished.” (DiConsiglio).
...inite decision to make in this situation. King Louis XVI tried to rule his country with an absolute monarchy, and the plan backfired substantially. The result was the citizens rebelling rightfully so, but the situation went to an extreme extent. The determination of the people must have been extensive because the government had to send armies in attempts to conquer them. The only answer to this question is no, The Reign of Terror was not justified because it was ridiculous. It began with a central plan to protect the people supposedly, but corrupted itself into an ultrasensitive, unjust massacre. The people of the country were forced to rebel by their greedy leaders, and so countless lives were lost, along with time, energy, and money. I can only hope that the United States of America remains grounded, and we’re not forced to rebel like countries in the Middle East.
In today’s society the word “terrorism” has gone global. We see this term on television, in magazines and even from other people speaking of it. In their essay “Controlling Irrational Fears After 9/11”, published in 2002, Clark R. Chapman and Alan W. Harris argue that the reaction of the American officials, people and the media after the attacks of 9/11 was completely irrational due to the simple fact of fear. Chapman and Harris jump right into dismembering the irrational argument, often experienced with relationships and our personal analysis. They express how this argument came about from the terrorist being able to succeed in “achieving one major goal, which was spreading fear” among the American people (Chapman & Harris, para.1). The supporters of the irrational reaction argument state that because “Americans unwittingly cooperated with the terrorist in achieving the major goal”, the result was a widespread of disrupted lives of the Americans and if this reaction had been more rational then there would have been “less disruption in the lives of our citizens” (Chapman & Harris, para. 1).
These methods however, became too extreme and the deaths of the incident was not justified. Although, the Reign of Terror was seen as a way to let the revolution live and was well supported, it was not justified. Because the internal threats propagated radicalism, the external threats raged and became stronger, and the methods became chaotic the Reign of Terror extended its stay in France until the death of the powerful leader Robespierre. The Reign of Terror was an outreach to gain rights, but during this period they were taken away until the fateful day of Robespierre’s death, ending the Terror.
To accomplish this task, he murdered close to 40,000 people, most by guillotine, and some sentenced to life in jail. The Reign of Terror was one of the most controversial, and terrifying phases of the Revolution. Some French colonists thought it to be a path to democracy; others thought it was just an attempt by Robespierre to assume dictatorship. The other great leader was Napoleon Bonaparte. He believed that the only way to have control in France was to put a limit on democracy.
...pave the way for democracy, but the bloodshed could have been more limited. Many people during the Revolution believed that France needed a change in many ways. They had achieved that by 1793. Many new reforms had been implemented in the country and it was much better off than it had been four years prior. I do agree with Kropotkin that the abolishing of serfdom and absolutism was a great achievement for France and that it did lead to a democratic system. Though this is true, the violence and bloodshed during the Revolution could have been minimized through committees and discussions. Schama is also right in that some men were too radical and their new found power went to their head. All said and done, the French Revolution was a bloody time in history, but it paved the way for a new democratic system not only for France but for many other countries as well.
The French Revolution was a major transformation of the society and political system of France, lasting from 1789 to 1799. During the course of the Revolution, France was changed from an absolute monarchy, to a republic of supposedly equal and free citizens. The effects of the French Revolution were widespread, both inside and outside of France, and impacted all of Europe. At times the outcome of revolt led to social change and at times it just led to unnecessary bloodshed. Was this revolution inevitable? Was there something different that the government or people could have done to prevent the horrible atrocities of The Reign of Terror under Robespierre and his men? There are clear social, economic and political changes that could have been made too prevent this revolution from occurring when it did. However, although the government could have postponed this revolution, it was also somewhat inevitable, because of the great differences in the society of the peasants and the nobles divided the entire society. The government was also just trying to make too many things right at the wrong time and this is why they could possibly have not avoided the French Revolution.
“Europe cannot conceive of life without Kings and nobles; and we cannot conceive of it with them. Europe is lavishing her blood to preserve her chains, whereas we are lavishing ours to destroy them”(Maximilien Robespierre). For centuries upon centuries, the monarchal system had dominated European life. The very nature of this method of rule incited rebellious feelings, as a definite imbalance of power was present. Understandably, people under this system had risen against authority. The glorious nation of France was no exception. The eighteenth century brought about a great deal of economic and social turmoil. By the end of this one hundred year period, rebellion had been talked about by many citizens for quite some time. However, no definitive action was taken until one man stepped to the forefront; Maximilien Robespierre. Born in Arras, France about thirty years prior to the French Revolution, Robespierre was an immensely intelligent man as is seen from his ability to read and write fluently from the age of eight (the Force of 10). Robespierre rose from fairly humble origins to become a provincial lawyer, advancing further to become a representative in the Estates General, and eventually ascending to the leader of the French Revolution itself. For its sake he sent thousands to the guillotine, overthrew a monarchy, declared a new national religion, and invigorated the will of a nation. “No individual of the French Revolutionary era, with the exception of Napolean Bonaparte, has excited more passion in his time than the…dedicated provincial lawyer, Maximilien Robespierre”(Maximilien 1). During this era, Robespierre led France’s world inspiring cry for the liberation of mankind and petrified the world with its relentle...
...wn the monarchy because “World History,” states that, “Louis was well-intentioned and sincerely wanted to improve the lives of the common people.” (Beck Roger, Black Linda, Krieger, Larry, Naylor Phillip, Shabaka Dahia, 653) However, King Louis XVI lacked the conviction and initiative to carry out any of his plans to truly improve the lives of the French citizens. Proof of this was that the French citizens were desperate enough to riot the streets of France and storm the prison of Bastille. After all that has been said, it is clear that the citizens were indeed justified to overthrow the monarch.