The Reign of Terror - Essay Example

? Why Terror? Introduction The French revolution has been viewed as one of the most decisive events in modern day Europe1. This is the event that has set up the foundation for the liberation of many other countries under the yoke of despotic monarchs. The revolution was equally a very bloody affair which saw many of its proponents beheaded at the guillotine for political reasons. The revolution ushered the reign of terror, a period in the history of the country that was truly dark. The revolution also ushered a new era of freedoms and common men like Napoleon were able to rise to the highest position of power. This paper will, therefore, look at the events that came to be known as the reign of terror. Why Terror? For clarity of this event, it is important to look at some issues that played a part in the events effecting of the reign of terror. One of these issues was the dismissal and banishment of Minister Necker, from France, and whose popularity with the masses was felt to have eclipsed that of the king2. This was because he was proposing to introduce reforms that would upset the set balance of things. Coupled with this was the fear in the people of the reprisals from the emigres as well as foreign powers sympathetic to the bourbon monarchy3. This was a period of great unease among the Parisians whose city, Paris, was to be the theatre of activities that would determine the fate of the revolution. To add to this was the flight of the reigning monarch Louis XVI to Varennes, a city that was along the way to the fortress of Montmedy. It was in this fortress, in Northern France, that the King was hoping to launch a military offensive to regain his throne. The fortress was still held by royalists, therefore, the King hoped to capitalise on this to gain an upper hand. In Paris, his current place of residence, the king was weakened and there was little he could do without having the revolutionaries counter him if it was unfavourable to them. He, therefore, opted to attempt the flight. He was, however, captured and brought back to Paris and even underwent humiliating experiences for his actions. Despite a majority of the assembly that governed France at the time ‘accepting’ the King’s explanation as not an escape, but more of ‘abduction’ there were some within the Assembly who refused doing so4. This minority that did not go along with the rest was that of the Cordelier Club5 that was mainly made up of Jacobins, a club that was at the foremost in promoting the French Revolution. This group was of the opinion that there should be a consultation with the populace and the punishment of the King. It is important to acknowledge the threat the king posed to the revolution due to the fact that he was alive. There was always threat of danger from royalists within the republic as well as those that were not in the country. One such strong influence was the Duke of Brunswick. In August, there was a manifesto circulated in France in which the Duke threatened to attack and dominate France if the King and his family were subjected to any inhuman treatment6. The king was to later be guillotined, and other aristocrats were to meet the same fate as the king. The terror upon the aristocracy was an attempt of the revolutionaries to rid themselves from any challenge that would threaten their existence. It was not a unanimous agreement to execute the enemies of the state. There were some dissenting opinions from groups like the Girondins. This group of legislators were a more liberal thinking club in comparison to the radical Jacobins. With the execution of the King, the Jacobins had gained more power in comparison to the Girondins. Due to their liberal approach, the Girondins did not see the need to have mass executions of all the aristocrats7. The rivalry between these two clubs was so fierce that their members were always armed8. This rivalry did not stop at the intellectual or ideological level, it went further than that. The Jacobins led by among other Robespierre, Danton and Marat, plotted the downfall of the Girondins, this was to lead to intense bloodshed. It is imperative to acknowledge the level of sway that Marat had over the mobs9. According to Furet10, the sovereignty of the republic lay with the people. With Marat controlling these people, cries all over Paris of ‘Perish the Girondins’ were heard in the streets as mobs surged in search of the members of this club. The issue was the continued conflicts of classes that still existed. The Girondins were mainly drawn from the middle class also known as the bourgeoisie. It also drew members from the tradesmen and statesmen11 . Members like Marat of the Jacobins would always take advantage of any platform presented to them to hurl attacks at the Girondins. The approach to the revolution for these two clubs was different. While the Girondins were more in support of the peace that would allow their investments to excel, the Jacobins were rooting for chaos as a way of getting their desired goals. This thus caused a lot of friction between these two movements with even members of the Girondins being arrested. There was, for example, a scene where there was an arrest of twenty two Girondins on charges that were highly unfounded12. The Jacobins who’s Mountain Party was a member of the Assembly was able to pass legislation that dissolved the Gironde Party and then went on to place its members under house arrest. With this move, the Jacobins were able to eliminate a challenge to their authority13. The Jacobins were able to reign in the republic for a period, but there was always the threat of attack from the countries that neighboured France. Due to her actions, France had managed to anger a lot of nations who perceived her actions as being threatening to their stability. This thus led to numerous attacks of the republic from countries like Spain, England Austria and Prussia among others. Personalities within the Reign Of Terror Looking at the constitution of the Jacobin club, three names stand out due to their contribution in the revolution. These men are Robespierre, Marat and Danton. Maximilien Robespierre liked to view himself as the watch-dog or conscience of the revolution14. To achieve the revolutionary objectives, he was adept to advocating the use of aggression. The consequence of this is what came to be known as the reign of terror15. This reign was responsible for the death of a lot of people himself included. The lawyer by profession is known to have preferred the executions of all offenders and little or no mercy as this was akin to ‘barbarity’16. The role of Robespierre in the revolution was boosted by his eloquence as well as his choice of challenges to tackle. He was adept to tackling the general issues while the specificities were left to others to work through17 . The fervent determination to defend personal liberties is seen in his speeches18. He has made it quite clear from these speeches his stand against the oppressive regimes and the desire to attain liberal policies in the republic19. He paint his opponents as anti revolutionary and this whipped up emotions among his supporters to take up arms to rid the republic of these people. The second person to look at is Georges Danton. Together with Robespierre, they served in the Committee of Public Safety. This was the group that was mandated to maintain order. Danton was a revolutionary who was to lead this committee. Being a radical like Robespierre, he was believed that the resolution to the trouble with the royalists was simple. It was ‘audacity, more audacity and even greater audacity’20. He believed in instilling terror on royalists as one of the solutions. This thus explains the reign of terror and damage in human mortality that it visited upon France. Another very instrumental individual during the reign of terror was Jean-Paul Marat. As stated above, he was a charismatic person who was able to capture the hearts of the masses and sway them. He was a Parisian journalist who was responsible for the overthrow of the Girondins from the Assembly. This was done through force and public or rather mob intimidation of the legislators to surrender. Like Robespierre and Danton, he was a radical in his approach to the revolution and one of its leading figures. Positive Impacts of the Reign Of Terror Looking back at this dark time in the history of the French revolution, the reign of terror has the capacity to evoke emotions of anger as well as pride. This particular section will try to look at the reign in a bid to establish whether any good did come out of this event. The reign of terror can be argued to have been an essential evil for several reasons as will be seen below. One important issue to note is that there was little other options open to the revolutionaries at the point when the reign was instituted. There was chaos after the execution of the King and there was always the threat of insurrection from royalists. The revolutionary government had no choice, but to instil fear in the hearts of the enemies of the republic. The Duke of Brunswick was threatening to bombard Paris if anything bad befell the king. With the king dead, every nation with an aristocracy which was all of Europe feared that they would catch the cold that had been spread by the French sneeze21. With this threat hanging over their own shoulders, the revolutionaries needed to ensure that the republic did not crumble from within. With this in mind, it, therefore, necessitated the need to eliminate this threat. As a result, the revolutionaries guillotined 17,000 members of the aristocracy and clergy and another 23,000 illegally22. This saw a lot of potential challengers eliminated from the republic. Looking at the argument that way, it seems that though it was a despicable act, that the reign was something that needed to be done. Due to the nature of its rise to power, the revolutionary government was a hugely populist one. This means that they were only in power as long as they pleased the masses. As a result, the government just like the Romans before them had to treat the public to such spectacles to keep them from being agitated. Since the aristocracy was hugely unpopular at that time, they were an interesting target of these executions. Another great outcome of this was to be the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, a Corsican by birth, but who would be instrumental in eliminating the threat of the revolution and the prosperity that he was to win France from both the internal policies to his foreign policies. Napoleon was to singlehandedly manage to redraw the map of Europe including improve the standing of France on the international scene. He was even responsible for the beautification of France as well as flourishing of France in international trade through his influence. The reign can, therefore, claim this as one of its triumphs. Negative Outcomes of the Reign of Terror As it is the case with all things bloody, there is always the chance that the institutors of that event will fall victim to it. The French revolution was no different. The leadership that was so instrumental in bringing about the downfall of the monarchy also met the same fate as the monarch. Both Robespierre and Danton were guillotined for different crimes, but, which were also an attempt to politically eliminate them. Marat was to be killed by a young aristocratic woman while he took a bath. The reign of terror also did play a very critical role in the escalation of previously ideological differences into violent ones. The Jacobins and the Girondins were for the duration of the elimination of Louis XVI one team determined to fight the common foe, in this case, the monarchy. However, with the fall of the monarchy, differences cropped up, the Jacobins were more radical in their approach to the revolution. They had the greatest role in the institution of the reign of terror. The Girondins on the other hand were liberal in their outlook23, they did vote for the execution of the King, but they only did so because it suited them politically. As a result, the Jacobins plotted, and after patiently reviewing their attempts after every loss, managed to eliminate them24. Another negative outcome of the reign of terror was the wars that were launched and the ensuing poor living conditions of the forces and the people who were in the country25. It was also because of the reign of terror that the country went into anarchy. There was chaos everywhere with every person who could take up arms doing so. Also, a lot of people died, most of them innocent, but could not be spared because they could have made the leaders of the revolution appear weak. Robespierre even made this quite clear when he talked of mercy as an act of barbarism26. This trend was to see the execution of the two revolutionaries. It was, therefore, a failure on the pert of the leadership to learn to control the flow of things. During this duration of the terror, there was food control and price control27. This was mainly because the food was not much since the state was at war and, therefore, production was low. In light with this, a large number of citizens were going hungry due to the lack of food. The terror can, therefore, in this case, be seen to have worsened the plight of the same people it had promised to protect and liberate. The French revolutionary juggernaut was powered in a sense by the three principles. These were equality, liberation and a sense of brotherhood. However, the reign of terror did nothing to uphold this. It instead, it amounted to a group of people who were constituent of the Committee of Public Safety. This committee did not exactly uphold public safety, but was used as a conduit to the death of members of the aristocracy, not because of what they had done, but who they were. The mass hatred of the Frenchmen of the nobility caused them to execute a lot of innocent people. Conclusion The reign of terror is aptly named. This is because the reign was instituted to ‘judge’ and ‘sentence’ people summarily without even giving them an opportunity to be heard. The victims of the transgressions of this time were numerous. Some people simply trumped up charges and proceeded to cause the deaths of innocent people without any regard to their actions. It is; therefore, better to assume that just as was the case in Britain, the French men could have easily sought other methods that did not lead to the misery that was visited upon France as a result of the reign of terror. Bibliography Andrew, E., 2011. Imperial Republics: Revolution, War, and Territorial Expansion from the English Civil War to the French Revolution. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Brown, H. G., 2006. Ending the French Revolution: Violence, Justice and Repression: From the Terror to Napoleon. Virginia: University of Virginia Press. Brinton, C. & Schneiderman, H. G., 2012. The Jacobins: An Essay in New History. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Chaurasia, R. S., 2002. History of Europe: 1789-1870. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors. Furet, F. & Ozouf, M., 1989. A Critical Dictionary of the French Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University press. Haydon, C. & Doyle, W., 1999. Robespierre. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Horatio, N. M., 1846. The Reign of Terror Historically and Biographically Treated: Being a Compend of the French Revolution from its Commencement to the Downfall of Robespierre. New York: Nafis & Cornish. Johnston, R. M., 2009. The French Revolution. Middlesex: The Echo Library. Robespierre, Maximilien, 1794. Report on the Principles of Public Morality, 17 Pluviose de l’an II. Retrieved on 24th Oct 2012 from: http://www.indiana.edu/~b356/texts/polit-moral.html,). White, J. R., 2012. Terrorism and Homeland Security. Belmont: CengageBrain.com. Shepherd, W. F., 2012. Price Control and the Reign of Terror France: 1793-1795. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1953. Maximilien Robespierre, 1987. ‘Report on the Principles of Political Morality’, in Baker, ed., The Old Regime and the French Revolution, Chicago, 368-84. Read More