At that time the only thing that people wanted was to have changes, that is why there was a revolution in France and people wanted that revolution to have results. The Paris mob was very frustrated by the way how the war was going. That was the reason why the monarchy was overthrown and Girondins came to power and it was absolutely the same reason for Robespierre to seize power in his hands. The difference is that when girondins came to power people thought that the situation could have been changed by peaceful reforms and that Girondins were capable to win the war. But when once more Sans Cullotes were frustrated by the military failures, high food prices due to the shortages caused by the war, it was the first time in the history of the French Revolution when the armed forced was used directly against an elected assembly in Paris.
Now Sans Cullotes were ready for more radical solutions as the more radical leaders came. That was the time for Robespierre’s rise and the introduction of his “Terror of Liberty”. The terror was in every aspect of people’s life. He had what it was called “The Law of Suspects” - at that time you had to watch what you were saying otherwise you would be suspected to be an “enemy of revolution”. That situation reminds me of a Soviet Union in the beginning of the XX century when the ruler of the country was Stalin: his spies were all over the country listening to what people were saying and if you said something that could in any way be interpreted as anti-Soviet or anti-Stalin you would be found dead the same day, it was the time when you couldn’t believe your own family, because people who did that were fanatics and no matter who you were you deserved death. From my point of view Robespierre and Stalin were similar in two ways: they were both paranoid that traitors were everywhere and they both were in favor of “Justified Terror“. And as I think this is not the way of ruling the country, I don’t think that any of such a rulers have ever had a true support of their nations – the only reason why they stayed in power is because people were scared of being either killed or put into jail.
When Robespierre came to power he introduced three types of terror: Political, Religious and Economic. Political terror was mainly about the “Law of Suspects” that I’ve just said about. The most significant suspects of that law were the Robespierre’s closest fellow campaigners such as Danton, Marat and Hebert. The same thing happened to Marie Antoinette and 31 Girondins because they didn’t agree to use terror for the good of the Revolution. The best example of the Religious terror is the case of La Vendee where more Catholics were killed than in whole France. It was the most catholic part of the France and during the “Reign of Terror” Catholics were considered as counter revolutionaries as there was a revolutionary religion “Worship of reason” which was based on revolutionary principals (liberty, equality and fraternity) and nature. The economic terror was basically about introducing the Law of General Maximum which meant putting a maximum price on food. That law was only introduced to please the Sans Cullotes as the prices for food were low. For me that situation looks absolutely the same as when the King would do anything to please the First and the Second estates because they were the ones that the King depended on. As we remember such a behavior caused the Revolution in 1789…
The reason why I listed all those terrors is that the terror had been brought about by the need to save the Revolution from foreign invasion, civil war and the economic collapse. All these problems had been successfully dealt with by Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety and terror was no longer needed. People now demanded the restoration of their revolutionary right and privileges, including Liberty. I don’t think that it is strange that Robespierre became a victim of his own success. For example on the 26th of June French won a famous battle of Fleureus against the Austrians which allowed the Revolutionary armies to invade Belgium. In fact there were no foreign soldiers on French soil at the time when Robespierre lost control of the Terror!!! And that, from my point of view, is the main reason for the fall of Robespierre.
The Sans Cullotes played a decisive role in brining Robespierre to power in the revolutionary Journee of May 31st to June the 2nd 1793. They had sustained Robespierre throughout the 14 months of Terror. Now the Sans Cullotes remained apathetic when the Convention challenged him between 26th and 28th of July. That happened because Robespierre had become concerned about the decline food production; the peasant had reduced the level of production because the Law of General Maximum was set too low, thus giving them a small return for their sale. On 23rd of July 1794 Robespierre doubled the Law of Maximum in order to pacify the peasantry without increasing the maximum on wages. As the result the Sans Cullotes were now experiencing the doubling of food prices. Robespierre had hurt the very group on which his dictatorship depended. On 26th of July Robespierre delivered a worst speech of his political career in Convention - he attacked his colleagues in a rambling speech; the speech belonged to “an exhausted man who no longer knew where he was going” (Townson, “France in Revolution”). He was saying that there were traitors in the Convention itself but when he was asked to name them, he refused. For me that looks like it was a peek of his paranoia. Next day the Convention voted for the arrest of Robespierre and on the 28th of July 1794 he and 22 of his closest supporters were guillotined.
I think that there were reasons and a motive for the fall of Robespierre. One of the reasons is that the terror has gone out of control and the motive was his last speech at the Convention. I don’t think that Robespierre was a “bloodthirsty maniac” he was too revolutionary purist that he would go to any extends to achieve the perfect Revolutionary society. Probably his extends were further that the patience of the people and that was another reason for the fall of Robespierre. As I said earlier there is no way that the leader of the country could use a “Justified terror” on his own people because I don’t think you can think of any moral justification for that. In fact Robespierre never had a complete control of France; actually, his dictatorship was brief and imperfect. Many of Robespierre’s enemies were guillotined. But the group that opposed him was in fear and they understood that the terror must be stopped and the only way to do that was to undermine Robespierre’s power and overthrow him at last.
St. Clare's
ESSAY
Account on the Rise and Fall of Robespierre
Written by: Darmesh Rakhat
Oxford 2002
Bibliography:
“France in revolution” D. Townson, published in 1990
“Revolution and Terror in France 1789 - 95” second edition
D.G. Wright, published in 1990
“Europe 1760 – 1871” D. Murphy, T. Morris, R. Staton, S. Waller
published in 2000
Notes from Andrew Young’s lectures
PC Encyclopedia
