Justification for the Use of Terror

Samantha Morris
September 9th, 2009

Maximilien Robespierre was the leader of The Committee of Public Safety during the radical phase of the french revolution. Robespierre played a big role in the Reign of Terror. Once a liberal thinker, he lost his belief in people. This caused him to become very radical in his actions (Justification for the Use of Terror (p. 1)). Hundreds of people were condemned to prison while others were executed, because they didn't agree with his beliefs. Were Maximilien Robespierre's efforts in the Reign of Terror justified, or were they entirely terroristic? In his speech Robespierre talks about moving the revolution forward (Justification for the Use of Terror (p. 1-2)). Maximilien believed he was helping the country obtain greatness, but in essence he was victimizing it's citizens. If a citizen spoke out against the french government, Robespierre, believed they were conspiring against the country. Basically saying, If your not for me; your against me. He believed in ruling with an iron fist, and that scaring the citizens into believing what he believed would then push the country into being a stronger, more unified country. He wanted what was best for the people, but ultimately he felt what was best is to rule over the people. He wanted control, and felt that if he had control it would move the country forward. Maximilien Robespierre talks about natural virtue in his speech. He says a nation becomes corrupted when the people lose their character, liberty, and virtue (Justification for the Use of Terror (p. 2)). The irony in this is he himself lost his character, and the basic principles of his philosophy. He believed in the equality of the people, but his beliefs soon turned around. He felt by using force and terror people would in turn become more law abiding patriots of the country (Justification for the Use of Terror (p. 3)). In actuality, Robespierre was terrorizing the people. They were no longer equal, and they lived in fear of the government. This is the opposite of his basic principles of governing that he had from the beginning. He called this justice, but I call this terror. Robespierre sought out for total control, and felt by instilling fear in the people he could accomplish this (Justification for the Use of Terror (p. 3)). Anyone who challenged his authority was put to death. He became power hungry, and compromised his beliefs to gain power. He essentially became a tyrant against tyranny, a hypocrite. He was doing things that at one point he had spoken out against. He justified his actions by saying it was for the better of the country, but in reality nothing he was doing was helping the country. He was oppressing the people. Instead of living in a democratic government, to which he sought out for, they were living in terror. I believe Robespierre's action were completely unjustified. His speech on the justification of the use of terror was just an excuse. He wanted absolute control over the citizen's, and he believed by scaring them he could accomplish this. His justification was used to make himself look better in the people's eyes, and to justify his actions to himself. To me instilling fear in people is not justifiable by any means. He became a tyrant, and his actions against the french citizens were unnecessary, and terroristic.