To What Extent Was Robespierre Justified

The Reign of Terror: Was it Justified? A kitten desperately howls as her assertive owner restricts her wish to roam the danger filled streets. In the eyes of the naive kitten, the owner’s consideration for her safety is perceived as nothing but an unjust limitation to her individual freedom. Robespierre’s duty as the ruler is similar to the one of a pet owner. The kitten, who represents the French counterrevolutionists, cluelessly whines against the owner because she does not know what is best for her. Robespierre, like the pet owner, instills limitations on the people 's rights to achieve what he believes to be the ideal France. During the rule of Louis XVI in the 1780s, profound problems like debt and inflation faced the country, sparking …show more content…
Soon after, revolution broke out as people chanted for liberty, equality and a sense of mutual friendship of the whole community. The strong advocate for complete political social reform, or radical leader, by the name of Maximilien Robespierre came to power. His rule became infamously known as “The Reign of Terror.” Some historians say that his actions were unjust and cruel while others argue that his measures were required and are justifiable. By examining Robespierre’s rule from historical evidence, one can see that “The Reign of Terror” is justified because the external threats did require it, the internal threats did deserve it, and the methods of response were not too harsh. Robespierre’s rule highlights the necessity to sacrifice individual rights for the greater good of a nation. By doing so, his attempts to conform the citizens to his ideals may be perceived as too extreme for some people, however, due to the destructive state