revolution_fr | Question about Robespierre and The Terror

fromrequired, yes, initially Robespierre was for the rights of the poor and the ordinary people. And of course, he didn't turn into a dictator overnight.
But: Robespierre said, that Virtue couldn't exist without Terror - like, if you don't execute everybody who isn't virtuous (in a revolutionary meaning) enough, you can't have a virtuous republic, which they wanted to create. It was a very idealistic vision.
Also, Robespierre and his faction were forced to open the Terror by counter-revolutionaries and because of the pressure from countries (monarchies) in neighborhood.
Robespierre is considered being the most important person of the period of Terror (and they always go together, him and the Terror :( )

(Actually, your WWII studies could help ;) "later revolutions and dictatorships": their stories are, in some parts, somewhat similar)

"(Actually, your WWII studies could help ;) "later revolutions and dictatorships": their stories are, in some parts, somewhat similar)"

Hmm I don't know, are you suggesting that Robespierre was similar to der Führer?

Well, I can see some similarities... (both wanted to create an ideal society, for example)

Yeah, I can kind of see that...

I think some of his political views were certainly similar to Lenin's (and maybe also Stalin's) - first USSR leaders were very much inspired by Jacobins and generally French revolution (even if they called it "French _bourgeois_ revolution")

Well, the only thing that I can say is that you should not trust everything that is said on Robespierre. He was not an evil man, and he never was a sanguinary dictator. If you read his last speech, you will see that he was very sick for the way the Terror was taking and for the calumnies against him. That speech was not a list of traitors that we wanted to be killed, but his own defense. ("Ils m'appellent tyran. Si je l'étais, ils ramperaient à mes pieds, je les gorgerais d'or, je leur assurerais le droit de commettre tous les crimes, et ils seraient reconnaissants. Si je l'étais, les rois que nous avons vaincus, loin de me dénoncer (quel tendre intérêt ils prennent à notre liberté ! ) me prêteraient leur coupable appui ; je transigerais avec eux".) Also, after his dead, the Terror didn't ended, but changed its ideals.
Is truth that History is never that simple. And the French Revolution was very complex. Robespierre was a very complex character too.
I hope this can help you, but the only way to meet Robespierre is reading what he wrote.
(And sorry for my english. I like WWII period too! but sometime I find it a bit depressing.)

That documentary is not the world's best. It's better than the recent BBC travesty, but I wouldn't trust it, or any textbook. Or any historian really, if what you really want is to understand Robespierre and/or the Revolution. Try to read primary sources, if you can - specifically concerning Robespierre, if you need your sources to be in English, try George Rudé's collection of writings by and about Robespierre (not to be confused with his biography). Failing that, Zizek recently published a collection of Robespierre's speeches, but the introduction is just about worthless and it's difficult to understand speeches out of context.

Unfortunately, most of the best information on the Revolution (and Robespierre) is only available in French.

I can give you my extremely generalized and short version of the answers to your questions, but you have no reason to take me at my word... Even so, you should know, first of all, that Robespierre was never accused of *being* a dictator in his lifetime, even by his bitterest enemies, only of *wanting* to be one. (It should also be noted that to people in the 18th century, the dictatorship was a Roman magistracy. When anyone from the time says "dictator" they're thinking more Sulla than Stalin.)
Second, the concept of the "Republic of Virtue" is a redundant one, since for any 18th century thinker from Montesquieu on, virtue (ie, the concept of participation in the Republic on the part of its citizens) was the foundation of any republic.
Third, Robespierre never stopped being for the rights of the poor and ordinary people.
Fourth, while everyone agrees that there was repression in the Year II, many historians are starting to question the usefulness of "the Terror" as a concept (J-C Martin demonstrates that it was never actually "put on the order of the day"; a number of studies analyze its invention post-Thermidor; M. Belissa considers that when people use the term Terror what they're really referring to is the popular government - an analysis borne out by the origins of the use of the term during the Revolution: in royalist newspapers decrying the "Terror" of the "Rights of Man and Citizen"; etc.) - as has often been noted with the term "Middle Ages" if you told someone in 1793-1794 that they were living under the Terror, they would have had no idea what you were talking about.
Fifth... well, I won't insult your intelligence by any lengthy explanation about how, say, Lenin's invocation of Robespierre tells you a lot more about Lenin than Robespierre.

Addendum to point four:

If what you really mean by asking what Robespierre's role in the Terror was is what was Robespierre's role in revolutionary repression, that question is slightly more complicated. In broad strokes: no, Robespierre did not have a problem with the idea of making it so counterrevolutionaries could not harm the Revolution, whether this meant with fighting them on the battlefield, with economic sanctions, with imprisonment, or, if necessary, with execution. Was Robespierre the only one who felt this way? No. Is the Republic in question "his" personal "Republic of Virtue"? Once again, no. Are counterrevolutionaries (defined by F. Gauthier as those who oppose the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen and its being put into effect) figments of Robespierre's (or anyone else's) paranoid imagination? Not at all. But did Robespierre use the term counterrevolutionary to satisfy his bloodlust/paranoid fantasies/revenge, etc.? I can find no evidence that he did so and I don't believe it. Did Robespierre believe that everyone who was not a model citizen should be guillotined? There is a great deal of evidence, both in his words and his actions to show that this was not the case. Were there abuses during this period of revolutionary repression? Absolutely. Was Robespierre personally responsible for them? In the vast majority of cases, it can be asserted with confidence that he was not (most of them can be attributed to his political enemies). There are certain cases that are more open to discussion (ie, the trial and execution of the Dantonistes), but even there, any responsibility borne by Robespierre is a shared, not a personal responsibility, because, as noted above, he never had that kind of power. In short, Robespierre, active player in the fight against the counterrevolution with the means at his disposal? Certainly. Robespierre, bloodthirsty dictator? Certainly not.

But again, don't take my word on any of this. Read about it for yourself. (It sounds like you already know enough to not just blindly trust the first account you read, so it would be superfluous to warn you against that.)

Wow, I never thought I'd receive such detailed, quick responses. You guys are amazing. Thank you!

I've read some of Monstesquieu and Rousseau's works and suspected that Robespierre was at least partially inspired by their ideals. Then again, I don't see the necessity for the Cult of Supreme Being (indeed, I shouldn't judge him from a 21st century American perspective), but I guess that was one of his ways of achieving Rousseauian ideals.

I kind of get the idea that "The Terror" was in fact, a reaction to counterrevolutionaries, which I agree were great threats to the very existence of the French Republic.

As for primary sources, I do not speak a lick of French but I have Google Translate, haha. And I also found some accounts in English in Modern History Sourcebook. Did Robespierre happen to write anything in Latin?

The Cult of Supreme being was a necessity, because people had to believe in some kind of God (don't forget, that France was de-christianized)

There many sources written in English :)

Well, Robespierre himself didn't like the de-christianization. As for the Cult of the supreme being: Robespierre was a deist, in other words he believed in the existence of a greater being/god, but he wasn't an adherent of any existing religion. He didn't like atheism, calling it aristocratic. The Cult of the Supreme Being was essential him trying to connect the ideals of the revolution with the believe in a deity.

(I find it funny that there seem to be a lot of people who think Robespierre was an atheist. I've seen him (or rather, the "bloodthirsty monster" version of him) being named as an example why atheism supposedly leads to mass murder.)

"Then again, I don't see the necessity for the Cult of Supreme Being (indeed, I shouldn't judge him from a 21st century American perspective), but I guess that was one of his ways of achieving Rousseauian ideals."

I thought the same until I actually read The Social Contract. Then I realized how the idea of civil religion is completely reasonable and acceptable. Rousseau explained it really well.

Regarding your other questions, I can only agree with the previous posts. The Terror was a necessity no matter how harsh it sounds. People often forget the circumstances in France at that time. France was in danger in every way. So, as the French would say, à temps exceptionnel, mesures exceptionnelles. No matter what the revisionists might think of it...

You're quite welcome.

The only sources relative to Robespierre in latin would be from Louis-le-Grand. Unfortunately, his prize-winning essays (along with those of all the other students) from his time there have been lost. If I remember correctly, we have his diploma (in Latin), but that's about it.

It can be a real challenge to find primary sources in English. As a translator, I do my best to contribute, but it's a huge project, obviously.

According to R. Barny and Fl. Gauthier, at least, Mably's role was probably greater than Rousseau's in the Robespierristes' political development. Though I don't think their work has been translated, it's possible you might find a translation of Mably. Also, in terms of influence, happily for non-francophones, Locke, Sidney, Milton, the English Revolution and its theorists in general, "Cato's Letters", etc. were all much greater influences on the Revolutionaries than is generally supposed...

I get the feeling that most of the sources (the ones relevant to his political career and the French Revolution) are in French anyway, so no loss. Thank you so much for helping me out on that part, though.

I imagine so, especially considering the small number of French Revolution enthusiasts in English-speaking countries. I suspect that has something to do with English literary depictions of Robespierre as a tyrant and the French Revolution in general as an execution party (a la The Scarlet Pimpernel, A Tale of Two Cities, etc)...

Thank you for the list of theorists/philosophers! I really appreciate your help. I'm glad to have found this community.

Occasionally you'll find Revolutionary journals that quote Latin as well, (though the more democratically inclined among them tend to provide a translation when they do).

Yes, I do rather think that has something to do with it. It's a bit hard to get enthused about mindless head-chopping.

Once, again, you're quite welcome. It's nice to meet someone who's relatively new to the Revolution who doesn't come in with the unshakeable conviction that if a textbook says something it must be true.

I've always thought that the Revolutionaries were influenced by ancient Romans, such as Cicero, to some extent.

Aw, I'm flattered. :) Sadly, most people blindly believe what they are told.

They certainly were. The question is: to what extent? In fact, this is the precise topic of my senior (undergraduate) thesis and the more I read about it, the more I realize just how complex a question it really is, since for any given Revolutionary, the use of Antiquity is filtered through their education, what they've read, their political views, the current situation, etc. As to Cicero in particular, his chief influence was stylistic, the basis of education in 18th century France being Latin and rhetoric and the master of Latin rhetoric being Cicero. Although most of them certainly weren't averse to accusing their enemies of being Catiline from time to time...

Sadly, most people blindly believe what they are told.
You're right, alas! There's not enough emphasis on critical thinking in education... which, I hate to say, is not exactly a coincidence.

Loving the userpic!

"The question is: to what extent?"
I wish I could offer an insight, but I doubt there's much someone like me, a product of public school ~~indoctrination~~ education, can contribute. One thing I did note was the frequent mention of "virtue" in classical writing of Roman politicians.. Even Augustus seems to have valued "virtue," but one could argue that he probably isn't the best example, considering how he undermined the Roman Republic.

No, there isn't, even in Social Studies classes. For instance, today I challenged my teacher on the claim that Robespierre was the despot of the French Republic. Her reply? "That's not what the AP exam readers are looking for." Some of my classmates also chimed in, arguing that it does not matter as he's dead and who cares about dead people? I feel like Americans in general do not value intellectual discussions thanks to the dumbed down public school system. It's ridiculous.

Thanks! I wish I could take credit for it. Actually, though, it was made by

pixelbee.

Don't worry, that was a rhetorical question. But yes, the concept of civic virtue has its origins in Antiquity, before being developped by everyone from Machiavelli to Milton to Montesquieu. (You see why this deceptively simple question quickly becomes complicated.)

That's awful. I would say this is a result of teaching to the test, but of course, the model of standardized testing is only a symptom of the greater problem of the purpose of public education. The prevailing view in the US and increasingly elsewhere, unfortunately, is that one get's an education to find a good job and make as much money as possible, which is, of course, only one possible application of education and not the one that those who first theorized and put into place public education had in mind. For them (and I confess to subscribing to this view as well), the purpose of public education is to create citizens, and part of that process is creating people who can think critically. From the point of view of your classmates, and, it seems - and what is more disturbing, considering her career choice - there is no reason to study history at all. What they're really saying when they say that Robespierre's place in history doesn't matter because he's dead is that there's no reason for the class they're taking/teaching to even exist, which is a far graver problem.

That said, I highly doubt that even within this system, should you write something more historically informed than your textbook on your AP exam, you would get points off. Alas, if you did, you would have no way of knowing because of the lack of transparency regarding standardized testing in general...

Now that I think of it, I vaguely remember Machiavelli mentioning civic virtue. But yeah, it seems extremely complicated to me. Good luck on your thesis!

My teacher loves history enough to name her children after Prussian generals, but she seems somewhat, er, utilitarian?
I thought public education was implemented during the Industrial Revolution to supply the workforce with a somewhat educated population of workers who did not need to run to their manager every time when they came across a simple mathematical problem. Or is this just another one of the many things that my class is getting wrong? That said, I cannot agree more; it's disappointing to hear students proclaim their utter disdain for their AP classes. Obviously they only signed up to polish their college resumes, but why sign up for an AP class you have absolutely no interest in?

It is rather complicated. But thank you!

I read somewhere that what separates the discipline of history from simple, sterile antiquarianism is the realization of its relevance. I wouldn't presume to say I know from the little you've told me what your teacher's view of history is, but there's loving history and there's understanding its significance. It's possible to have the one without the other (notably, people who view history as a collection of neat facts tend to love history without understanding it). In my view, whatever else history is, it is first and foremost our only real means of contextualizing ourselves (insert Cicero quote here - I'm sure you know the one I mean).

Naturally, the question of the institution of public education is more complicated than either what I've just suggested or what they teach in your class. But the French Revoluionaries were some of the earliest theorists of free, mandatory, (more or less, depending on the project in question) secular public education, for them, and for their 19th century emulators (at least in France and in the US), forming citizens was a large part of the goal. Did others take up the idea for other reasons (including and especially the ones you mention)? Of course. Was the practical element absent from the Revolutionary educational projects? Of course not. Is there ambiguity within and overlap between the two currents (particularly in the 19th century)? Naturally. It's worth noting that in less democratically inclined countries, there was far greater emphasis on the second current than the first, which tended to disappear entirely. That said, the first current really is first in a chronological sense and it could be argued that the second current is a much a perversion of the original idea as the modern American educational system.

As for why your classmates would take an AP class they're not interested in? I'm afraid you've just answered your own question: they're taking it for the sake of their college admissions prospects. Which goes back to the perversion of the educational system; their goal is what the educational system as it stands tells them it should be: to make as much money as possible, not to be better citizens or to enrich their minds or to understand the world around them. And no, not even to learn something interesting (ie, the "neat facts" school of history - which can also be applied to other disciplines, although ironically, the terms are flipped in a discipline like math, where those who think purely of its practical applications, extremely useful though they are, tend to miss an important part of its significance).

Sorry for the double posting. And you're welcome :)

I don't think I have ever thought this deeply about history, but you're quite right. Out of curiosity, are you pursuing a history major at the moment?

Some of the modern institutions that we tend to take for granted seem to all come from the French Revolution - granting citizenships to ethnic minorities, for example. I read that Robespierre argued for granting French citizenships to freed blacks, but they will never teach us those facts in history classes, as the mere thought of a bloodthirsty despot embracing open-minded ideals is mind-blowing to most historians.

Such attitudes disgust me. Although it's indisputable that good career prospects are important to students, far too many students take a class only so that they can get into Rice or Vanderbilt (I live in the South).

I am indeed pursuing a history major. To clarify: I first became interested in the French Revolution in 9th grade and have been studying it, with more or less method, ever since. I'm now in my third year at Oberlin College, which year I am taking to study in Paris. After I get my BA, I intend to return here for graduate work and eventually to become a historian.

Interestingly, according to the law, free blacks already had citizenship. Which is to say, the Code noir of 1685 only recognized two statutes: "free subject of the king of France" and "slave". Everyone in the former category became a citizen with the Revolution. However, there was a powerful segregationist party in the French colonies that was (quite illegally) depriving them of their rights and trying to confirm this injustice legally and that was what Robespierre spoke out against. He was also for the abolition of slavery, which as a result of the Revolution of Saint-Domingue, the most important of the French colonies, was abolished by the representatives of the National Convention on mission there, Sonthonax and Polverel, the Convention itself later ratified this decision and extended it to all the other colonies (though application was not universal, due to difficulties involving the counterrevolutionary colonists, who joined forces with the British and the Spanish against France to keep slavery in place), on 16 Pluviôse Year II (4 February 1794).

Robespierre also argued for the rights of full citizenship for religious minorities and actors and against the Constituent Assembly's decrees dividing the population into "active" and "passive" citizens, in which system, levels of citizenship were determined by wealth as indicated by direct taxation (the equivalent of 3 days pay to vote, 10 to be an elector, and a silver mark - a great deal of money - to be eligible for election). This last qualification was never put into effect, but the Legislative Assembly was elected by only "active" citizens. These qualifications were abolished for the election of the Convention.

I don't mean to say that economic considerations are not important, but contrary to what this society would have us believe, they're not everything. It's a shame how easily people buy into the system. Easy enough to do when that's all you've ever been exposed to, I suppose.

It must take a lot of determination to follow that path. Maybe you'll be the historian to throw some new light on the French Revolution. I'd be quite excited to brag to other history nerds that I spoke to you online, heh.

That's interesting. Citizenships for blacks in 18th century? And I thought Pitt the Younger was such an amazing human rights activist for advocating the abolition of slave trade.

Yes, I read that he stood up for the rights of the Jews and Protestants, quite contrary to the absolutist kings that brutally persecuted the Huguenots.
I had no idea actors were deprived of their rights in 18th century France however, especially when considering that one of the members of the Committee of Public Safety was a former actor. The improvements in human rights in France after the Revolution are remarkable, but I would imagine that such legal advancements were promptly retracted by Napoleon. Do you know if free blacks in France had voting rights as well? Just curious.

Oh, indeed. The fact that so many people hate their occupations is quite sad.

I'm flattered, really, but I doubt if I'll be able to make as much of an impact as I would like. There's a reason the Simon Schama's of his world have all the best posts and platforms. Anyway, I'll be in France - though I'll certainly make sure my works are translated into English (by myself, if necessary).

Actually, the interesting thing about those who wanted the abolition of the slave trade is that many of them were not for the abolition of slavery and certainly not of colonialism. Most of them were not in it for particularly humanitarian reasons, but rather because it was becoming too expensive to continue with the old system, under which large numbers of captives were expected to die, if not en route, then within an average of ten years on the plantations - in other words, they were were expendable. They became much less expendable when the demand for new captives began to outpace the supply. At that point, advocates of the abolition of the slave trade began looking for alternatives for keeping the colonial system going, some advocating "breeding" slaves on the plantations (which would require a higher level of investment in them and which would, yes, in some ways improve conditions for them, but only to increase their life expectancy and ensure their ability to have children). Other, more "far-sighted" theorists began to realize that wage-slavery is far more efficient than actual slavery (you haven't actually invested in the workers, so if they starve on the pittance you pay them it's no longer your problem - charming, right?) and began to advocate for the gradual abolition of slavery, over eighty years, for example (Condorcet was among these last).

The National Convention's program was entirely different: the slaves were freed and made citizens immediately and at the same time. In fact, the decree of 16 Pluviôse Year II that I just mentioned was voted after the reception of the very symbolic deputation of Saint-Domingue into the Convention : one black deputy (Belley), one métis deputy (Mills), and one white deputy (Dufay).

In France itself, there was no slavery, even under the Ancien Régime - if a colonist brought his slaves to France and they decided they didn't want to serve him any more, there was nothing he could do about it - and discrimination based on skin color was virtually non-existant. For example, Julien Raimond, one of the founders of the Society of Citizens of Color which played a big role in enlightening public opinion as to what was going on in the colonies during the Revolution, was the son of a "white" plantation owner and his legitimate "black" wife. (This was extremely common in the colonies and the class of plantation owners was largely mixed - which complicated segregationalist efforts, let it be said in passing - when you hear about "free blacks" in the colonies, this is really, for the most part, referring to members of this dominant class that their rivals in the segregationalist party are trying to shut out of it.) Raimond was his father's heir and he and his siblings were sent to France to be educated. His sisters stayed in France and married wealthy merchants (clearly, it mattered much more to them that they were the daughters of a wealthy plantation owner than whatever the color of their skin was). Raimond returned to Saint-Domingue, where he was harrassed and discriminated against by the segregationalists, so he returned to France to lobby against them, under the protection of the minister de Castries, who was forced by the more powerful segregationalist lobby to resign. Because he could scarcely go back to Saint-Domingue after the failure of his project to reform, he remained in France (on his wife's lands - again, regardless of his skin color in France itself he's hardly a victim of the Ancien Régime), where he could still be found in 1789... And where, naturally, he gained the same voting rights as everyone else upon the arrival of the Revolution.

As for Bonaparte's role in all this? He didn't do anything to actors or much to Protestants, but he did restrict the rights of Jews and reestablish slavery (in 1802). Well, that is, he reestablished slavery everywhere he could; he lost a whole army trying to reinstate slavery in Saint-Domingue, but ultimately it gained its independance as the nation of Haïti in 1804.

Oh, and re: actors under the Ancien Régime? They had much the same handicaps as religious minorities in terms of rights. (Of course, we're speaking of rights in terms of privileges here, so even if you were lucky enough to have a wider range of "rights"/privileges under the Ancien Régime, you were still subject to the arbitrariness of the system - even the most powerful aristocrat was subject to the king's whim.)

And yes, one has to work to live, of course, but it would certainly be better if any given person could make enough to live comfortably on (without being encouraged to always want more, as we all are currently) pursuing whichever career would be most fulfilling to him or her.

It's refreshing to hear different historical evaluations!

I find it a bit hard to believe that there was little racism and certainly no "one-drop rule" in France at that time. I really hate to sound like the stupid American that I am, but wouldn't applying the "one-drop rule" make more sense in economical terms, especially considering that (as you've mentioned) slave trade was becoming less profitable? I suppose that was a frustrating and close-minded question, but it's a little bit hard to believe that there was little racism in France on the basis that interracial marriages were recognized (marriages between Native Americans and English colonists were common, but I'd hardly say that there was little racism towards Native Americans in English colonies), especially considering the attitudes of some contemporary thinkers towards blacks.

Oh Napoleon... And I wonder why he is so beloved, although Napoleonic enthusiasts might argue otherwise.
That's precisely the reason why French Revolution is so interesting. They got rid of one of the most absolutist monarchies in Europe at the time (although the notion that Louis XVI was a powerful despot like his great-great-great grandfather is rather questionable) and established a republic, all the while defeating just about every country in Western Europe that tried to suppress them.

I understand your incredulity; when one has grown up in a society with a history of racism (and as I'm sure you know, the development of the concept of race happened differently in the English colonies and in yet another, third way, in the Spanish colonies), it's difficult to conceive of racism as being anything but a universal instinct that has to be overcome. But the evidence is there, if one is willing to examine it. I gave one particular example, but I could multiply them. When the segregationalists in the colonies started to gain the upper hand in the 1750s, many mixed raced members of the dominant class sailed for France where they had no problem integrating into the larger society - and by that I don't just mean that they were able to marry, but that there is no evidence that they encountered any kind of discrimination or harassment.

As I'm sure you've had occasion to observe, racism can exist without slavery, but so too can slavery exist without racism - in fact, it did for thousands of years. The concept of race as we know it was just starting to be developed in the 18th century and didn't really take on all the characteristics that we still ascribe to it until the 19th - even in the US, where because of specific historical contingencies, it developed earlier than in the French colonies (an example of one of these contingencies: when your colony is on a large continent, it's very easy for slaves to run away and, if you don't have some way of differentiating them, disappear into the surrounding population; when your colony is on a tiny island, as was the case for the French colonies, this problem is virtually non-existant - which is not to say that slaves never ran away, just that they were reduced to hiding out in the mountains, at which juncture it didn't matter what they looked like).

I should also note that there is a difference between racism and xenophobia or discrimination based on the belief in one's cultural superiority. That belief that someone is a savage (whether of the noble or the to-be-killed/converted-on-sight kind), while repulsive, is not necessarily always racist and I would argue that whatever any given group of European colonists politics concerning them (ranging from intermarriage to extermination, though, again, for particular historical reasons, the French and Spanish were - on average: no need to cite early Virginia or Columbus, I am aware of them - more receptive to intermarriage and the English more inclined to extermination) had much less to do, at least in the beginning, with their looks and much more with their cultures and beliefs.

Bonaparte is also beloved for very specific historical reasons, involving a complex mixture of his propaganda, his military genius, contradictions in his policies (eg, remember how I said he restricted the rights of French Jews? He's more often remembered as the emancipator of the Jews, because he forced the governments of occupied countries to give them basic civil rights) and the fact that, with the 19th and (especially the first half of the) 20th centuries being the heyday of racism and imperialism, very few people knew or cared about his colonial policy and if they did they tended to think of it more as being for the greater glory of France than for its eternal shame. That said, credit where credit is due: Bonaparte was largely responsible for the success of the siege of Toulon.

Also, re: Pitt the Younger. It's ironic that he should be considered as the philanthropic abolitionist of the slave trade. Well, that is, his contemporaries would have considered it quite ironic. The list of what we would call his human rights violations and what the French Revolutionaries and the "patriots" and "radicals" of his own country would refer to as violations of natural rights and the droit des gens (ius gentium) is not a short one. Of course, Pitt didn't believe in human rights (that's what makes him a counter-revolutionary), but there was a form of the droit des gens that was generally considered as established by the 18th century, even by traditional monarchies. Here is one principle: when two powers are at war, one power has the right to seize shipments of weapons to the other aboard neutral ships; otherwise neutral ships were to be left alone under the principle of free ships, free goods. Pitt extended the goods liable to be considered as weapons and confiscated to foodstuffs, thereby creating the "right" to starve a population of non-combattants. This was important not only because this was exactly the policy that he pursued (in this particular case by seizing American grain shipments to France), but also because by his declaration he turned this violation into a principle.

Indeed, each European colony had a different construct of race. And yes, slavery can exist without racism; I won't argue against that.

I really appreciate your input! Yes, it must be harder for me to understand as an American...
I admit that I don't know much about the social trend during that time, as 18th century France is not exactly my historical focus, but I would imagine that racial boundaries similar to that of modern ones did exist. Even before the 19th and early half of the 20th century, thinkers and scientists such as Hume, Cuvier, Voltaire and Kant were already commenting on the innate inferiority of blacks, in many cases, linking their phenotypes to inferior traits, especially intelligence. While I would not generalize millions of people based on the writings of a few, it does indeed seem to substantiate that racial distinctions did exist at that time.

Racial construct is not always followed by racial discrimination, but it's highly possible. Could it be possible that the mixed emigrants were accepted because they had some white ancestry? As you know, the racial construct in French and Spanish colonies were different from that of the English, and they seemed to have recognized people of mixed black and white ancestries as a separate class at best (mulattoes and metis), while the English just viewed them as "black." And well, I'd like to think of the French revolutionaries (most of them, anyway) as more socially enlightened than the average European at the time. I'm largely ignorant on this issue so I apologize if I'm sounding close-minded or not making any sense.

As for my original comment regarding Pitt the Younger, I should have added that I thankfully no longer hold that view. I used to when I was much younger and irrational, when my social studies teacher made us watch Amazing Grace in which he is depicted as an effective (not to argue that he wasn't) and altruistic Prime Minister played by attractive Benedict Cumberbatch.
I do realize that many of his policies were not the most humane. However, I admit that I lost a whole lot of respect for him when I read your comment about his role in sanctioning France. Oh God.

While Napoleon seems more enlightened than most of the other European monarchs at the time, I'm personally irked by the fact that he effectively reduced women - whom proved themselves to be intelligent and strong enough to be actively participating in French Revolution - to housewives with little legal rights and preached divine right. Although I wholeheartedly agree- he had some major accomplishments and made some progresses.

I don't like that documentary very much. It leaves out too many important things/events/people and is generally more like a (very brief) summary of the Revolution. If you want to learn more about Robespierre or the French Revolution in general, you should perhaps read something about it. There are many books available in English that deal with the Terror... Palmer's "Twelve who Ruled" is probably the best.

I agree with what has already been said: Robespierre was not a "sanguinary dictator". He was an idealist who supported the rights of the poor and oppressed. The Terror was a reaction to the double threat of war external war (with half of Europe) and civil war organized by the aristocracy/clergy (for example in the Vendée). It is impossible to understand why the Terror happened without keeping this circumstances in mind. Robespierre (and others too, it's not like he was the only person to support the Terror!) advocated the use of "terreur" (not "reign of terror", that phrase was invented by historians) to deal with the counterrevolutionary threat. I'm not saying that everyone who was guillotined in year II actually was a counterrevolutionary or that they all deserved to die. But you should keep in mind why it happened and that it would be too easy to just blame Robespierre for everything when the situation at that time was very difficult and complex.

Gah, reading everything you guys wrote and doing some individual research on my own, I started to find it sickening that my school dared to teach us such blatant propaganda. Worse thing is that the kids are soaking this right up - we recently had a debate on whether Robespierre was truly "incorruptible" and most in my class argued he was a corrupt (when there's no evidence? That's when I started to become suspicious), French version of Kim Jong-Il who tried to elevate himself to the position of a deity, citing that documentary above. And I thought WWII was bad...

My reaction to the Cult of Supreme Being is rather personal. I actually read parts of The Social Contract (via my teacher forcing me, but I ended up liking it); I personally disagreed with Rousseau about the idea of having a Civil Religion, but it was indeed explained very nicely.
Of course, as I've stated earlier, it would not be fair of me to judge Rousseau or Robespierre from a 21st century, American point of view.

I'm sure I've become pretty annoying by now, but according to the documentary I've posted above, Robespierre apparently was on top of a paper mache mountain wearing a toga during the Festival of Supreme Being. Is there any truth to this? I'm asking because it seems like such an absurd and unreasonable thing to do for someone who wrote this: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/robespierre-supreme.html

Thanks for all the book recommendations, by the way. :) I'll be sure to check them out.

Robespierre will be Incorruptible (with capital letter), no matter what your class argue. Especially when the source they use is the Documentary that Shall-Not-Be-Named. ~~at least the guy playing Robespierre was handsome and had nice eyes >__>~~
Is not true that Robespierre was in the top of a paper mache mountain wearing a toga. He was with all the others members of the Convention, and they all were wearing the same outfit. He pronounced the speech in his quality of president of the Convention.
And the source of the toga and the paper mache mountain thing... Well, do you know that movie Danton by Wadja? Well, that's the source >:C

Oh, thank you for replying. I was sure I was annoying the hell out of y'all haha.

As for my class, never mind them; they're all idiots who couldn't give a darn about French Revolution and Robespierre if their rich mommies and daddies didn't make them sign up for an AP class. Tells you a lot about public education.

"at least the guy playing Robespierre was handsome and had nice eyes >__>" Oh, I know ;) Browsing through this community, I came across several media depictions that made him seem like a 50-year-old creep, when we can see in that he was exactly the opposite of that. Just as how the Luftwaffe is almost always depicted as as ebeel ugly monsters in American movies, when in reality, it was compromised of men like Maximilian Mayerl and Hans-Joachim Marseille...

Wow, seriously? D: That is just... oh God. Please don't tell me that is the kind of education that students at Johns Hopkins University are receiving. And this is the 18th best university in the world we're talking about!

But their rich and capitalist mommies and daddies will never pay it... They will say: BUT...BUT...BUT THAT WOULD TAKE OUR CHILDREN TO TEH EVIL LEFT-WING~ ÓoÒ
And yes, Robespierre was freaking cute! :3 -or at least his soul was cute- But our history teachers don't notice that: they have never read his speeches, and even less his adorable poems.
And yes, that's the horrible truth. But the quality of the university doesn't matter when it comes to the French Revolution... For example, Simon Schama (a reactionary pseudo-historian) studied in Columbia University.

Yes, even though I do not entirely agree with Robespierre's politics, I still admire the fact that he attempted to establish a republic in a formerly absolutist country.

Hmm, that's strange that he studied at Columbia. My perception of Columbia has always been a place where the students smoke weed and sing some sort of a Black Power anthem around a campfire... One would think that there would be more Robespierre sympathizers in such a liberal university.

I don't live in the USA, (see my awful grammatical mistakes) so, I can't say nothing about the universities there.
Talking about Schama, I think that he is just a neoliberal propagandist, but not a serious historian. If you read his Citizens you'll see that he is the opposite of a serious historian.
Also, you'll notice that even more when you watch the Other-Documentary-That-Shall-Not-Be-Named-Because-Is-Much-Worse-Than-The-History-Channel-Documentary (But I'll name it): Terror! Robespierre and the French Revolution (Please, don't do that! I watched it a week ago and I'm sick in my bed right now xP ~~And I found this community looking for bad reviews of it~~). My problem with it is not their comments, because they have the right of liberty of speech -And what gave then that right? Oh yes! The French Revolution!-, my problem is that they don't have real arguments to say that, they changed phrases and statistics, compared Robespierre to Hitler and Stalin, and just to destroy the souls of the members of the CSP, specially the ones of Robespierre and Saint-Just.
Ups... I think I changed the subject ^-^; but I couldn't avoid to talk about that documentary That-Shall-Not-Be-Named-Too >.>

Your English is quite good!

I haven't read any of his works yet, and by the sounds of it, I don't think I want to.
As for the forbidden documentary, I got curious and watched the first 2 minutes of it on Youtube; I think I'm traumatized for the rest of my life. I don't know much about the French Revolution, but it's a common sense that there were no emos during the 18th century (referring to the guy with the emo hair; think he might be Robespierre's secretary or something?).

But yeah, I probably shouldn't have watched it...

Oh, seriously? Thanks! :3 but it take to me forever to write a comment: I translate some words, revise the conjugation of some verbs and reread it ten times before post it.
And the emo guy supposedly is... Saint-Just! ;___; He was a very prominent revolutionary like Robespierre, but this documentary make you think that he was Robespierre's valet. That is how they are destroying him.
There is an essay (http://community.livejournal.com/revolution_fr/88673.html) here about this. I found this community googling for something like it.

You're welcome! And I also preview my comments before I post them, as I tend to make the stupidest grammar and spelling mistakes. Haha, you're not alone.

But how does one go from this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Saint_Just.jpg/200px-Saint_Just.jpg to this: http://content2.myyearbook.com/zenhex/images/quiz47/231395/231395_res1_sexy.jpg
? I don't know much about this Saint-Just person, but if he was a prominent Revolutionary, I doubt that he would have acted like Robespierre's valet... Thank you for the link, by the way!

That's a very big difference ._. my theory is that they though that was cheaper to make him an emo hairstyle >.>
Or maybe... *inserts a paranoid theory here*

I have nothing against "emo" people per se (heck, I myself used to dabble in the "scene" subculture when I was younger D:), but seeing a French revolutionary depicted with the hairstyle of my douche ex-boyfriend from 9th grade is cringeworthy. ~~Not to mention that the actor playing Robespierre doesn't resemble him at all.~~

Or maybe... they're trying to depict Saint-Just as a pissed-off teenager in a deliberate attempt to discredit him. I don't know. Either way, the documentary sucks.

Question about Robespierre and The Terror

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Part 1

Part 2

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject