Maximillien Robespierre

Maximillien Robespierre

Maximillien Robespierre is commonly viewed as the symbol of the Reign of Terror, the short period in which thousands of people were executed because they were thought to be traitors. However, Maximillien was actually an idealistic reformer with an image of peace and equality driving him on, who is unfairly credited with the Terror, and assumed to be a power-hungry tyrant.

Maximillien was able to attend a prominent educational institution. He became an intelligent person and pursued a career in law. His practice exposed him to an interest in humanity and the abused rights of many people (Hanson 32). Maximillien was opposed to violence. While a judge, he condemned a murderer and, according to his sister, was up all night repeating "I know he is to blame. He is a rascal... but to kill a man..." (Eagan 18) He was concerned only with getting justice in peaceful ways. He had considered various ways their society could be reformed by law (DMOZ). He was a dedicated subject to the royalty, but had dreams of a republic. Robespierre said, "In Republican governments, men are all equal; they are also equal in despotic governments; in the former, because they are everything; in the latter, because they are nothing" (Carr 63).

Robespierre had very good intentions. His main goal was creating a world of "brotherly love" where people were all united in friendship (Furet 1970, 199). Basically a utopia. At one time, under Robespierre's influence, the Committee of Public Safety announced its efforts for a world of perpetual peace. There would be no more diplomats, armies, or bloodshed. They would not perform any act of war with the view of making conquests or use its force against the liberties of anyone (Gaxotte 85). In February 1794, Robespierre stated that his motive was:

The tranquil enjoyment of liberty and equality; the reign of that eternal justice, the laws of which are graven, not on marble or stone, but in the hearts of men, even in the heart of the slave who has forgotten them, and in that of the tyrant who disowns them.

Unfortunately only Robespierre was really against war, not the Committee of Public Safety (Gaxotte 125). His reason against war was his involvement in religion. He was of the highest standards and avoided anything questionable to his faith (Furet 1989, 300). The other reason for his opposition to war and violence was that he thought a disaster for French arms would restore the previous government system (Hampson 125).

Robespierre was honestly working for the good of the people. He once stopped 75 Girondins from being tried for signing a secret protest against their leaders' arrests, knowing they would be executed (Hampson 139). Much of the public understood and loved Robespierre. When he was finally arrested, the prison guard refused to hold him (Gaxotte 223). Instead of fleeing, he returned to Paris where a crowd of his followers congregated. He absolutely forbid them to fight for him, as they were planning (Geib). His altruistic efforts suggest some outside force caused the change in his allowing of the more brutal manner of reformation, later, when the many thousands of people were executed. Jean-Jacques Rousseau may have influenced Robespierre with his strong nationalist views, being an important, and influential role-model for Robespierre. It is said that Robespierre slept with a copy of Rousseau's Social Contract next to him (Halsall). Rousseau thought that it was the greatest of all sins to continue in life when one believes there is a better way (Searle). Robespierre knew there was another way; a republic, free of the uncaring rule of powerful monarchs. This idea may have encouraged Robespierre to press for reformation at all costs.

Robespierre was also influenced by the Committee of Public Safety, which he was a part of. The other nationalists within the Committee may have pressured him into speeding the reformation by the seriousness of his actions. Members began using the Committee's power for "gratifying their own hatreds" while pretending to be saving the country (Madelin 865).

Robespierre's position in the leadership of the Jacobin Club and the Committee of Public Safety suggests he was a major part of their decisions and actions. However, he rarely attended either group's meetings during the heart of the Terror (Blanning 252). Clearly he couldn't have had much influence on them. After he had unofficially "seceded" from the Committee of Public Safety and the Jacobin Club is when a large portion of the slaughter happened (Croker 398)

Robespierre's position in the Terror is also skewed. While many imagine him leading on the Terror, the terror actually controlled him; he stood still while the revolution moved around him. He was afraid to oppose it in fear of being thought of as counterrevolutionary, knowing he would surely be executed (Furet 1989, 301). He had begun, trying to gain enough power to get the revolution moving. He ended up with much more power than he could handle. He is identified with the Terror because he was much of the democratic support. His strong drive for democracy became confused with the strong actions of the Terror (Belloc 42).

Robespierre was able to influence because he was an incredible tactician with an ability to manipulate others' thoughts; his rhetoric constantly impressed listeners (Furet 1989, 302). Near his death, his enemies even shot off his jaw in order to prevent him from defending his position, in fear that he could convince others to free him (Geib). He believed that the citizens supported the Terror, and convinced them he was in favor of it in order to uphold his public acclaim (Belloc 43). Nevertheless, he opposed the Terror silently, never swaying in his motives to build a republic (Hanson 322).

His inability to prevent it shouldn't make the Terror his own responsibility. The Terror's beginning was already in place before Robespierre was even in the government (Lewis 42). France had been ruled by a council of ministers and committees of Convention. Obviously these large groups weren't able to act in unison during France's warfare crisis. The Convention then created groups such as the Committee of Public Safety, that had far too much power, and were susceptible to causing a terror (Lewis 42).

An understandable reason for blaming Robespierre is that the terror ended at his death. The real cause for its end was that it began to threaten the lives of the various prominent terrorists who commonly initiated massacres (Hampson 267). Once they lost interest, the Terror had no fuel. Also, the Committee of Public Safety had little power when they lost Robespierre's popular position