- Statistics
- Document 1
- Document 2
- Document 3
- Important Figures
- Document 4
- Document 6
- Document 7 (disagree)
- General Public
- Document 9
- Document 10
- Document 12
- Document 13
**During the French Revolution, the time of Terror was, as its named suggests, a time of much turmoil and death in the whole of France. Throughout the whole of these massacres and be-headings, though, many different reforms were instituted for the better of France as a whole. Policies were put in place and government orders were changed in order to please as many of the subjects as possible in an attempt to stop the murder. These reforms and whatnot would later be very beneficial to France after eventually stopping the Terror. However, this was not the best way the citizens could have gone about trying to change France. Though in the end the Terror seemed to have solved many problems of the French Revolution, there was no need to resort to all the violence and killings that occurred in this time period; important figures in the Revolution at that time, the opinion of the general public, and execution statistics of the Terror show how devastating this time was, and how France would have benefited more had this much violence not been used.
**Statistically, the death toll in the whole of France was outrageous. By the end of the terror, 2639 people had been killed in the city of Paris alone. In the entire country of France, over 11000 people had fallen victim to the devastation of the Terror. Even worse, these deaths were among people of all different social classes: nobles, middle class, peasants, every class imaginable in France was effected by the Terror (doc. 2). Some territories of France -- Vendee and Lyon, for example -- had over 400 executions take place (doc. 1). And even aside from this caste system they already had, with these differing view points as part of the Revolution, France was even more divided than it had ever been. Throughout all of France people were pitted against one another, siding with the enemy, siding against the state, maybe not even allying themselves at all (doc. 3). The Terror of France caused much discord within France, and unfortunately the one thing that all castes and opinions had in common was a large death toll.
**As people began to see how devastating the Terror was, many important figures, whether revolutionaries or people of the state just wanted it to stop. Camille Desmoulins, a journalist and former ally of Maximilien Robespierre, wrote, "You want to remove all your enemies by means of the guillotine? Has there ever been such great a folly?" (doc. 6). She goes on to say that these people doing the killings were murdering so many innocent people for no good reason, and the really brave ones are the ones that have unfortunately perished. She, like many others, realizes what a terrible idea something like the Terror is, and how much more efficient discussing matters peacefully would be. Charles James Fox, reformist member of Parliament and sympathizer with the French Revolution, said in a speech to Parliament, "What a pity that a people capable of such incredible energy should be guilty or rather be governed by those who are guilty of such unheard of crimes and cruealties," (doc. 4). He believes that the people of France do indeed have the potential for greatness, but they are putting this potential at risk by killing all of their enemies. Even as a sympathizer of the French Revolution, he believes that murder is not the way to solve problems. On the other side of the argument, Maximilien Robespierre says in a speech to the National Convention, "To good citizens revolutionary government owes the full protection of the state; to the enemies of the people it owes only death," (doc. 7). This was the violent mindset for the people in favor of the Terror. Though Robespierre did have supporters at first, people eventually realized that his ideas were not logical and would only cause harm, so they took power away from him. People, like Desmoulins, Fox, and those who demoted Robespierre, were completely right in saying how useless it was to go around killing people in order to try and make a better France.
**Even the insignificant general public came to learn that the Terror was a terrible idea. They were indeed in favor of it at first, though, in the January 28, 1794 report to the government on public opinion, which said, "The majority of the citizens agreed unanimously saying that the tribunals act well, that they acquit the innocent and punish the guilty," (doc. 9). But even in this same report it goes on to say, "Murmurs are heard among the public at their judgements," (doc. 9). These people murmuring were the ones who had the right idea about the Terror and that it should be stopped. Just a month later in the next report to the government, it was written, “Bitter complaints already expressed numberless times, were repeated today of the arrest and
imprisonment of citizens who are good patriots and are victims of ambition, cupidity, jealousy, and, in
short, every human passion," (doc. 10). More and more people are beginning to rightly realize that killing people is not the best solution to any problem. Even more discontent was brewing the next month. The next report said, "On seeing peasants on the scaffold, people said, What, have these wretches allowed themselves to be corrupted?" (doc. 12). By now they are certain that people in charge during the Terror were, as the said corrupted. Lastly, on March 30, it was reported, "The revolutionary committees are every day falling into discredit," (doc. 13). By now almost all of the general public knew how bad of an idea the Terror was, and they all just wanted it to stop.
**Though there were solutions that came from the Terror within the French Revolution, these solutions could have arisen from much more peaceful means. As statistics, important figures, and the general public all agree, murder and massacre are not the way to solve problems. Though it took some a little longer to come around then others, eventually nearly everyone was able to see that they should have come up with better alternatives to solve their problems.
You say that the Terror was not necessary, but you fail to give an alternative. Instead, you source documents about the Terror in a way that lacks analysis and conclude with generalizations and hypotheses not based on historical fact.
ReplyDelete