Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The french revolution 1789-1799 esaay
French revolution from the event 1789-1799
French revolution 1776
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The french revolution 1789-1799 esaay
In attempt to form a new government the French decided that they were going to do just that without anyone/anything stopping them. For years the French government had ruled and made changes without consideration for the citizens consent. However the ‘new’ government were hoping to change that. The foreigners threats didn’t require it to be justified. They wanted to make the government better and expressed their opinions harshly in order to do so. The relationship between prussia and Austria was already built. But, the government during the time was worried about the revolution growing and getting worse. (Document A) Some were concerned for Marie Antoinette’s safety. Although she was also a sister of an Austrian Ruler (Document B). The problem with the reign of terror cannot be justified even if it is almost ended. …show more content…
The internal threat did not deserve it.
The problem with the threat is that they had goals of getting rid of the most celebrated holidays in the world. Christmas is the most celebrated holiday in the world and it did not deserve to get taken away. This reason alone proves that the internal threat truly did not deserve it. “No one should be silenced on account of his opinions, including his religious views and beliefs”(Doc A). The threats that were being made caused a counter revolution against the French government. Ultimately terror is not necessary and went too far. This could have been dealt with very differently, and done it peacefully instead of going as far as the persecutions did and one leader can justify what maximillien did. He took advantage of his role and proposed extremity with it. The French government could have handled this a different way, however the citizens causing the terror upon the country are mostly to blame. They could have peacefully protested their beliefs and what they think government should have done about this
problem. The response of the reign to external and internal threats were too radical and not right. The way that the leader hired spies makes the reign of terror unjustified because one man took his power to a level higher than deserving. The government was limiting the peoples rights, because everyone has rights to peacefully protest. Although, Everyone deserves protection during a democratic revolution, not just revolutionaries, even though it was understandable that the revolutionaries wanted stability, it was not justifiable to ignore thousands of innocent citizens to reach this goal. Also, it did not work. Robespierre himself ended up on chopping block. Overall, it is inexcusable to be greedy towards the people and take extreme measures such as these, and then Robespierre’s unjustified ideas not even working.
The French government was hypocritical because it went against the ideals it created in 1789. A new set of laws were composed, they were known as The Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizens (Document A). The Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizens was created
Outside threats from foreign countries did in no way justify the acts of the Reign of Terror. Foreign countries such as Austria and Prussia had reason to act. If they didn’t access the situation quickly, the revolution would spread to their countries and their people would also rebel. Austria itself was worried about the safety of Louis XVI’s wife, Queen Marie Antoinette, who was a daughter in the Austrian royal family (Doc. B). They had reason to
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 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...
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
The Reign of Terror is generally defined as a period of remorseless repression or bloodshed, but in particular, it is the period of the Terror during the French Revolution. Conservatives are people that hold to traditional attitudes and values and are cautious about change or innovation. Now that we can speak of our topic with more knowledge of terms typically used for this subject, we can address the pending question. Is The Reign of Terror justified? An outstanding number of people died for good and bad reasons.
The American Revolutionary system served as a model, exemplifying the potential for great change and consolidation. The United States Constitution also provided a template for the French National Assembly. Montesquieu’s proposal of the separation of powers, as well as democratic conventions with representatives of the French people provided protection for the people against their government, securing “the greatest freedom and security for a state” (Duiker and Spielvogel 463). According to Article XV, people possessed the right to hold government officials accountable for their actions, developing a moral incentive as well as a foundational right for a more democratic society (National Assembly). France’s preparation for their independence showed a strong desire for equality and representation that mirrored that of the United
Beginning in mid-1789, and lasting until late-1799, the French Revolution vastly changed the nation of France throughout its ten years. From the storming of the Bastille, the ousting of the royal family, the Reign of Terror, and all the way to the Napoleonic period, France changed vastly during this time. But, for the better part of the last 200 years, the effects that the French Revolution had on the nation, have been vigorously debated by historian and other experts. Aspects of debate have focused around how much change the revolution really caused, and the type of change, as well as whether the changes that it brought about should be looked at as positive or negative. Furthermore, many debate whether the Revolutions excesses and shortcomings can be justified by the gains that the revolution brought throughout the country.
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.
Each social class in France has its own reasons for wanting a change in government. The aristocracy was upset by the king’s power, while the Bourgeoisie was upset by the privileges of the aristocracy. The peasants and urban workers were upset by their burdensome existence. The rigid, unjust social structure meant that citizens were looking for change because “all social classes.had become uncomfortable and unhappy with the status quo.” (Nardo, 13)
However, the noble-born were not ready to lose their supremacy, and there are very high chances that had they been aware of what the low-class citizens were planning, they would have retaliated with brutal force. Consequently, an upheaval was a need to change France, and anything contrary to that would need concrete proof that the Crown was ready to consider the problems of the people. On that note, contrary to Burke’s views, the people obviously had enough sense to realize that they were never going to have any privileges without force.
...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.
On August 26, 1789, the assembly issued the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.” Through judicial matters, this document was written in order to secure due process and to create self-government among the French citizens. This document offered to the world and especially to the French citizens a summary of the morals and values of the Revolution, while in turn justifying the destruction of a government; especially in this case the French government, based upon autocracy of the ruler and advantage. The formation of a new government based upon the indisputable rights of the individuals of France through liberty and political uniformity.
... voted into the new republic. “France was a republic, but one now in the hands of an assembly dominated by conservatives, many of whom were monarchists”7.