Robespierre
No specific document, but food for thought: Was Robespierre being a dictator, or was he doing what was necessary to save the revolution?
Comment on the above question in a mature response, and also respond to your classmates' ideas. In your response, consider elements of what it means to be a dictator versus what it means to be dedicated to a cause.
Due: MIDNIGHT, Thursday, Nov. 9
Comment on the above question in a mature response, and also respond to your classmates' ideas. In your response, consider elements of what it means to be a dictator versus what it means to be dedicated to a cause.
Due: MIDNIGHT, Thursday, Nov. 9
posted by RJS at
8:03 AM
7 Comments:
Whether or not Robespierre could be classified as a dictator is not strictly defined enough to yield a clear answer. There are a few points against his being a dictator, however. Firstly, he was not by any means the only person with power, being only an equal member of a committee that had the majority of power, which he didn't even especially initially want to be part of. What sort of power he had inside the workings of the committee are uncertain, though he was certainly the most vocal of its members. It is unclear whether or not he actually ordered specific executions to happen, though they would be attributed to him because, again, he was the vocal one. It is assumed that he could not have gotten any of his controversial achievements done had the committee decided against them, so they must have been on his side in the matter. They enabled him even if he did come up with every person to execute. History tends to shine its light on colorful and vocal figures, making them seem either heroically brilliant or evil dictators, usually depending on whether or not they won their respective wars or personal battles. For instance, Hitler was very vocal, but did not kill as many people or kill more randomly as Stalin did, who was not nearly as vocal or strange. Abraham Lincoln was a very colorful, vocal leader who won his war and is considered one of our greatest presidents though he suspended habeas corpus and spent money without the authorization of congress. Robespierre lost, so others immediately after him denounced his actions and history portrayed him as worse than he might have been portrayed otherwise, though he did execute more than a thousand people. I believe he was not a dictator, but I am not sure whether or not his executions were better for the revolution.
By
Unknown, at Thursday, November 09, 2006 4:53:00 PM
I think Gabriael made a good point. In almost every case where power is given to somebody, someone else's death is justified because of it, almost without question, like in war. The difference was only that the war was internal. It is easy to believe that someone would be driven into a fanatical state defending an ideal. People such as Robespierre tend to forget that the ideal is only physically embodied in the revolution. Yes, we want to preserve what has been obtained through our struggle, but the ideals that kept us fighting cannot be soiled by going against them to ensure our victory's permanence. That was his mistake. His paranoia grew almost into insanity, which is never a really good characteristic in a person who has the power to excecute without substantial evidence. In the begining he was pure of intent, executing the aristocrats and the royal family, but the point I want to make is that you really shouldn't start killing the common people when it was a people's revolution in the first place. Executing the sans-culotte for being too radical is to make yourself the very enemy you once fought. Executing the Girondists for not being radical enough is eliminating your only hope for an ally. So he was dedicated to his cause, but like all of our revolutionaries eventually become, he was corrupted by his power and used the revolution as a sort of excuse to gain more of it. What makes him not a dictator though is the surprising control the rest of France had on him. People were so passionate at the time that they were willing to do anything, and all he had to do was suggest it. But once he started becoming irrational (which didn't take long), he was met with resistance. Would a dictator be shouted down in the middle of a speech and arrested? He'd have better control over things than that. He'd have militant force on his side, people who could lock the doors and slaughter every human being inside the place and cover it all up perfectly, silencing the families of those who had disappeared with threats of the same fate. That is what a dictator would do. He would force the people into submission. These people were a powerful entity with a mind of their own, and when he didn't suit them, they put an end to him.
By
Victoria, at Thursday, November 09, 2006 8:11:00 PM
Well, I intend to make history on this blog site by being the first person to say that Robespierre could be classified as a dictator. Success is irrelevant- Louis XIV and Louis XVI had radically different rules, but both are considered kings. A dictator has absolute control over his government and people. Robespierre killed 25,000 people to maintain control. That number is 25 times that of our high school. At one point he killed 30 people per day- one average classroom killed every day.
Some would argue that Robespierre was dedicated to the revolution, did not consider himself at all evil, and saw real evil in the peasants he killed. I say that human morality cannot allow that. Oh, the above may be used as justification, just as the guilty murderer or thief can provide ample justification for their action- they needed the money, the man had wronged him, the man deserved it, they wouldn't share. Yet the need to provide such elaborate justification proves that somewhere the people know that their actions are wrong. Nobody spends a great deal of time explaining the ten different motivations that led them to work in a soup kitchen.
Robespierre offered his own justification by saying that " virtue without terror is fatal," and "terror is an emanation of virtue." Terror is an extreme and unhealthy form of fear. Nothing in any human morals or sparse good traits requires fear of another person or far worse fear of one's government.
Some have said that Robespierre worked with the commitee of Public Safety to cushion the revolution. He killed the enrages and the conservative Republicans. For heaven's sake he killed Danton, a leader of that committee. Clearly he exceeded his bounds. His actions did not save the revolution- it weakened it by associating it with a reign of terror and secret raids. His purgation of the government reminds me of nothing so much as Hitler's action with the Reichstag. The only difference is that here the people stopped Robespierre in his tracks. Their victory should not diminish his threat.
By
ThomasBatson, at Thursday, November 09, 2006 9:43:00 PM
I really don't see Robespierre as a disctator. The governmental body that he was from was even described asonly having 'near dictator like power' and that's the whole group of people. He may have fancied himself some kind of revolutionary dictator but would never have said so since the country was supposed to be a republic. So he is in this group of people that still have to make descisions as a whole, which means that they shared power. A dictator is someone with absolute power and Robespierre was obviously sharing his with this group of people. I agree with Nate that people's success pretty much determines whether their seen as good or bad.
By
manxomefoe, at Thursday, November 09, 2006 11:51:00 PM
I agree with Gabriael in that Robespierre couldn't become a dictator because he was, according to everyone else at the time, extreme pro-republic. The power, if any, that Robespierre had over others would be that he had major influence over many of the french that looked to him. although he didn't come off as a dictator, I don't see him as the savior of the revolution either. His extremist views and, eventually, his radical actions seem to lead to the down fall of the revolution. After Robespierre became more radical, many people tied him with republics and he showed the revolution in a bad light, which made others think less of the revolution. Maybe Robespierre wasn't the downfall of the revolution, and maybe he didn't contribute, but, in my opinion, he didn't really help it out much.
By
TeganLove, at Friday, November 10, 2006 10:51:00 PM
While Robespierre did meet the dictator criterion of being both crazy and in power, to actually be a dictator would make him a walking paradox. Because, in theory, France was a republic where issues concerning the individual over the whole were shoved aside. His single mindedness is also a dictator hallmark, but his control was not absolute in the way that there were continuing pockets of resistance throughout France. Also, most dictators come into power purely for their own interests and, despite what they may say, essentially increases their own amount of support. Robespierre disposed of his opposition with a celerity that would make other rulers twitch, but he had no interest in building his own personal support in the people. I would say he blindly fought for a cause of which he truly believed, but that neither justifies the means or the end.
By
laura, at Tuesday, November 14, 2006 7:30:00 PM
Many points suggest Robespierre as a dictator but I do not think those were his intentions. He wanted France to become a republic because he felt the monarchy was gaining too much power. This is where his dictator-like characteristics come in. The Jacobins and he took over the government and enforced new radical ideas. They were quick to execute the royal family and lose everything that reminded France of its days as an absolutist monarchy. France went from protecting their national borders to defending their new republic. I guess Robespierre thought the only way to save the revolution was to adopt Enlightenment thought. Looking at how Robespierre controlled France and the terror he caused, you could say he was a dictator because he forced his idea of a republic on the French people and completely rationalized life in France.
By
taylor, at Tuesday, November 21, 2006 9:30:00 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home