A contemporary cartoon from 1793 shows Robespierre executing the executioner after everyone else has been executed. Robespierre has gone down in popular memory as an almost irrational bloodthirsty tyrant. However, once one places the Terror in context, it becomes easier to understand Robespierre if not to forgive him.
Reading
Please read Hunt and Censer, pp. 110-117, 121-125 and Maximilien Robespierre’s Speech on the Principles of Political Morality (1794) (Canvas). Please also listen to Canvas Lecture: What Was Robespierre’s Role in the Terror?
What We are Doing Today
And now we reach the infamous period of the French Revolution known as the Terror. We will discuss its origin, just what it was, and its consequences.
Depending on their politics, historians see the Terror in different ways. There is no arguing the following fact, though: when the Terror commenced, the French Republic faced enormous dangers from enemies within and without. One could argue that a number of these threats were self-induced, but whatever the case, extraordinary times called forth an extraordinary policy. The Terror, which was a bundle of military, political, economic, and cultural policies, sought to save the republic from destruction. Although it was not admirable, it was effective.
Keep in mind that a number of factors complicated the use of terror during this period. First, there was disagreement in the National Convention over its purpose. Historians have commonly made a distinction between Danton and Robespierre’s visions. Danton fully supported the Terror as an emergency measure that ought to be dispensed with once the crisis had passed. Robespierre, as the speech you will read indicates, thought Terror could be used for larger ends. Second, while the National Convention was divided, it was determined to remain in charge of the Terror; it did its best to avoid taking orders from the Paris sections, sans-culottes, and other radical forces (e.g. the Hébertists) that wanted to expand the implementation of Terror. Third, much of the Terror occurred in the provinces where the National Convention could only retain imperfect control of events. We cannot absolve the National Convention of responsibility for the fighting in the Vendée (which may have led to over 400,000 deaths), the destruction of Lyons (France’s second-largest city), and other events (like the drownings in Nantes), but these incidents were also produced by local circumstances.
Finally, we must note Robespierre’s role in these events. First, the emergence of the National Assembly, different politicians had established a moral ascendancy over the legislature. Up until 1791, it was Mirabeau. In 1792 and 1793, it was Brissot. In 1793 and 1794, it was Robespierre. While Robespierre offered a justification for Terror, he was not the only one implicated in its use. For one reason or another, many others supported the employment of Terror. After the Thermidor reaction, they distanced themselves from Robespierre by throwing all the blame for the Terror on him, but they were just as culpable. Second, Robespierre’s motives have been debated for centuries by scholars. Was he trying to make the best of a bad situation and navigate between different extremes? Was he a fanatic inspired by pure motives? Was he power hungry? Was he a monster? At this distance in time, we probably won’t be able to determine the answer with any certainty.
Francois Flameng, The Massacre of Machecoul (1884): Unrest in the Vendée finally came to a head in 1793 when dissatisfaction with the republican government in Paris led to a massive uprising in the region. This painting, commissioned by the Third Republic in 1884, depicts the aftermath of the opening act of the war in Vendée—the massacre of inhabitants in Machecoul by peasants from the surrounding countryside. The uprising in the Vendée had many causes. Peasants resented the Civil Constitution of the Clergy and were desperate to avoid military conscription. Moreover, they hated and feared the middle-class town-dwellers (often the peasants’ landlords) in their midst who often held administrative positions and supported the revolution. Eventually, the peasants, with some leadership from the local gentry, formed what was known as the Catholic and Royal Army. The republic’s reaction was swift and extremely violent. Conventional military operations ended later in the year, but the Vendée remained a troublesome area throughout the 1790s as peasants engaged in guerrilla warfare. Both sides committed unspeakable atrocities. Since the Third Republic was, well, a republic, it was unsympathetic in its portrayal of the peasant uprising.
Potential Quiz Questions
1) Who demanded that terror become “the order of the day”? What exactly did proponents of terror want to accomplish?
2) What was the gargantuan task facing the Committee of Public Safety? What steps did it take to deal with the various problems confronting the republic? (You can list these as bullet points.)
3) What were the two main aspects of policy pursued by the Committee of Public Safety and the Committee of General Security in late 1793? How were these aspects somewhat contradictory?
4) Why were the Girondins executed? Why were the Hébertists and Dantonists also executed? (HINT: The explanation is scattered over a number of pages.)
5) According to Robespierre in his speech on political morality, what was the objective of the revolution?
6) What was the only form of government, Robespierre argued, that could realize the objectives of the revolution? What was the fundamental principle of such a government? What was the “essence” of this kind of government? In whom should this government repose its confidence?
7) According to Robespierre, what are the driving forces of popular government during a revolution? How does Robespierre defend his assertion (which might be somewhat controversial) here?
8) According to Robespierre, what are the two kinds of excess that that can destroy a democracy?
9) According to today’s Canvas lecture, what exactly was Robespierre’s role in the terror?
Pierre-Alexandre Wille, Georges Danton (1794): Wille sketched this image of Danton from life on April 6, 1794 as the revolutionary leader took the one-hour journey in a tumbril from prison to the guillotine. Danton was a huge man and notoriously ugly. When a woman in the crowd saw him go past, she observed, “How ugly he is!” to which he responded, “There’s no point in telling me that now, as I won’t be ugly for much longer.” Danton had been an extremely significant revolutionary figure. A leader of the Cordelier Club, he had exercised enormous influence among the Paris sections, and he had been instrumental in the insurrection of August 10, 1792 which had led to the deposition of Louis XVI. Danton had been behind the erection of the Revolutionary Tribunal, the destruction of the Girondins, and the aggressive prosecution of the war. While he was a compelling speaker and presence, he never developed a large personal following in the National Convention (with the exception of Camille Desmoulins), he was not always an effective politicians, and he had a tendency to skip town at critical moments. Moreover, his relations with Marat and Robespierre were often uneasy. On his way to his execution, he stated, “What annoys me most is that I am going to die six weeks before Robespierre.” Danton was off by about ten weeks.
History 114: The French Revolution and Napoleon 