In the late 1700s a revolutionary movement swept across France bringing an end to the old way of life. This revolt began in a moderately liberal direction, but when a constitutional monarchy failed, the revolution tured in a more radical direction. When the King of France, Louis XIV, was forced from his throne and executed, a time of extreme radicalism and revolutionary action began. The National Convention formed the committee of public health and safety with Robespierre at the head and the Reign of Terror was instituted as an official policy. During the Reign of Terror from 1793 to 1794 the Committee of Public Health and Safety used terror to centralize the government and promote nationalism while defending France from outside threats
…show more content…
Firstly, the terror lead to the unjust deaths of thousands of innocent citizens. In Paris alone, a total of 2,639 people were executed and in the rest of France 11,361 citizens were put to death (Doc. 1). This unnecessary loss of life due to violent government policy is one of the unacceptable results of the terror. The reign of terror was instituted to remove threats within France, but the courts put many people to death without evidence of a fair trial. The Reign of Terror shattered families and took the lives of innocent men, women, and children, and this great loss of life is one of the greatest disadvantages of the terror. Additionally, Camille Desmoulins, a French journalist, wrote a series of questions to Robespierre asking “the stragglers of the revolution whom you imprison, are [they] really dangerous?”(Doc. 3). This questioning of the terror shows that people who were not really dangerous had their basic human rights taken away and were imprisoned without real reason or a chance to defend themselves. Desmoulins may be biassed in his questioning because as a former ally of Robespierre, he may be motivated by a personal vendetta, but this question is still valid and must be taken into consideration. Many of the people imprisoned during the reign of terror had committed no real …show more content…
It becomes clear from these documents that the reign of terror was unnecessary to the French Revolution and in many ways prevented the revolution from reaching its full potential. Many revolutions throughout history show that terror is not a necessary element of a successful revolution. In the 1700s the American colonies revolted against British rule and were able to overthrow their oppressors and establish a new government without terror. The Bloodless Revolution of Mary and William further proves that terror is not necessary to form a new government. William and Mary were able to successfully overthrow an oppressive king with the support of the people and establish a constitutional monarchy without spilling blood. In all of these revolutions the people felt they were not fairly represented in government so they revolted to bring equality. In both England and America terror was not used in the revolution, but in France the Reign of Terror took the revolution in a non- progressive direction that prevented the formation of a strong and lasting government. Ultimately, the Reign of Terror was a destructive and unsuccessful stage of the French revolution with
Firstly, the terror lead to the unjust deaths of thousands of innocent citizens. In Paris alone, a total of 2,639 people were executed and in the rest of France 11,361 citizens were put to death (Doc. 1). This unnecessary loss of life due to violent government policy is one of the unacceptable results of the terror. The reign of terror was instituted to remove threats within France, but the courts put many people to death without evidence of a fair trial. The Reign of Terror shattered families and took the lives of innocent men, women, and children, and this great loss of life is one of the greatest disadvantages of the terror. Additionally, Camille Desmoulins, a French journalist, wrote a series of questions to Robespierre asking “the stragglers of the revolution whom you imprison, are [they] really dangerous?”(Doc. 3). This questioning of the terror shows that people who were not really dangerous had their basic human rights taken away and were imprisoned without real reason or a chance to defend themselves. Desmoulins may be biassed in his questioning because as a former ally of Robespierre, he may be motivated by a personal vendetta, but this question is still valid and must be taken into consideration. Many of the people imprisoned during the reign of terror had committed no real …show more content…
It becomes clear from these documents that the reign of terror was unnecessary to the French Revolution and in many ways prevented the revolution from reaching its full potential. Many revolutions throughout history show that terror is not a necessary element of a successful revolution. In the 1700s the American colonies revolted against British rule and were able to overthrow their oppressors and establish a new government without terror. The Bloodless Revolution of Mary and William further proves that terror is not necessary to form a new government. William and Mary were able to successfully overthrow an oppressive king with the support of the people and establish a constitutional monarchy without spilling blood. In all of these revolutions the people felt they were not fairly represented in government so they revolted to bring equality. In both England and America terror was not used in the revolution, but in France the Reign of Terror took the revolution in a non- progressive direction that prevented the formation of a strong and lasting government. Ultimately, the Reign of Terror was a destructive and unsuccessful stage of the French revolution with