Robespierre’s Justification for State Terror
Robespierre’s Justification for State Terror Maximilien Robespierre states, “What is the goal toward which we are heading? The peaceful enjoyment of liberty and equality. ” (Bienvenu, p. 1, para. 1) The laws that have been passed by the royalty that are meant to bring long lasting righteousness, are laws that are recognized; these laws are not written any where but in the essence of all individuals. Robespierre was elected as the representative of the National Convention and joined a political club called the radical Jacobin party.
Being apart of the Convention and the Jacobins, Robespierre took over the administrative power of the Republic. Because the Jacobins believed that France was in need of change and restructuring, and Robespierre was now the head of the Convention, he can develop such change. By doing so he argues that in the land, the use of ethics must be replaced with the use of pride, proposition for traditions, self-regard for arrogance, magnificence for narcissism, prestige for money, and immorality of the sovereign for virtues and the phenomenon.
He believed in democracy and the Republic of virtue. He felt that in order to set the basis of democracy within the people, the merge of both ending the war of independence and oppression must take place in order to put an end to the revolt. The essences of the Republic are virtue and equality. He explains how it is the development of virtue and the maintenance of equality that creates the Republic. Therefore, it is embraced or founded by an individual.
He believed that the quality of being an admired government would be an advantage in gaining the trust of the citizens in order to create a strict and rigorous government, “…be trustful towards the people and severe towards itself. ” (Bienvenu, p. 2, para. 2) Robespierre states the strengths and weaknesses of this theory: the strength being the triumph of truth rather than dishonesty, and the rights of the community’s interests than the private. The purpose of both virtue and terror was that without terror it can be deadly, and if it is deadly, virtue is strong.
If one did not hated crime, they were presumed to detest virtue. Social protection is for the passive citizens, and the ones who are violent are the ones who are the ones who to be apart of England and Austria. Towards the end, Robespierre mentions an idea of Aristocracy, in which he creates secret illicit laws instead of vigorously supporting his own country. He ends by saying that a cruel government can kill, being free is not for everyone, and if anyone disagreed with his ideas, they would be considered an enemy or traitor.
Robespierre structures his argument by introducing the points he wants to make step by step. He starts off by informing the audience of what he thinks the land should contain, and how it should run. He gives examples of ideas, and substitutes them with what he thinks it should be instead. For instance, he would say, “good people in place of good society,” meaning he would replace a good society, and choose to have good citizens instead. (Bienvenu, p. 1, para. 2) Robespierre defines democracy in his own way, then goes on to describe how “the soul of the Republic is virtue [and] equality” (Bienvenu, p. , para. 6) is in his eyes. He mentions social protection, which is only for citizens who are passive. As this speech ends, Robespierre uses questions to bring the audience to a realization of the point[s] he was trying to bring out throughout the speech. He uses Aristocracy to back up his ideas. Towards the end, he leaves the audience with a riddle they must figure out in order to understand what he meant. Maximilien Robespierre violates all 17 articles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789.
He did not give the citizens to participate in the making of the law or the government. They were not given the freedom to speak, write or print, and not everyone had equal rights. The ones that followed his ideas received special treatment, whereas, the ones who disagreed, were considered conspirators. They were sometimes imprisoned and other times killed. He did the opposite of of Article 5, and acts in a way that it hurt society. He killed 40,000 people and locked up 3,000. He did not allow society to use of public agents when required.
Laws were created even though the people, and society did not agree. This is why, in 1794, Robespierre was sentence to death with the use of the guillotine, something he like to use for his executions. During the French Revolution, no one has caused as much dilemma as Maximilien Robespierre did. He believed in equality and virtue, however, he contradicted himself and was not aware that he was, in fact, biased. If he thought, heard or was even told that someone descended, they would have fell into the category of an enemy or traitor.
He is represents the later Adolf Hitler, who was a dictator, in several different ways. Two being that he tried to promote his beliefs to the people of his land, by infusing fear into the people of the land, and killing or injuring who ever would disagree with him. However, he did not discriminate as viciously as Hitler did. If Robespierre was to do what he did in the present society, he may have been sentenced to life in prison or capital punishment for attempting to corrupt the minds of others, and for killing as many people as he did.