Was he really the driving force behind the terror, or did the committee just use him as a scapegoat?
>>338998
Yes, he was a scapegoat.
This is a known fact.
"lf the attribute of popular government in peace is virtue, the attribute of popular government in revolution is at one and the same time virtue and terror, virtue without which terror is fatal, terror without which virtue is impotent. The terror is nothing but justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is thus an emanation of virtue."
Speech to the National Convention, (5 February 1794),
JUST
Robespierre was, compared to some others on the committee, reasonable. He didn't demand for the deaths of aristocrats simply because of their titles. He spoke out against putting Marie Antoinette on trial and executing her instead of sending her back to Austria. He spoke out when they began executing nobles and aristocrats for the sake of their lineage, particularly the king's sister. He was the one who recalled the butcher Carrier from Nantes, and who tried to put him on trial before getting kekolded by Carrier's friends in the Committee.
He wasn't atheist, and he didn't try to strip religion from France. He didn't come up with the "Religion of the Supreme Being," he didn't even write the proposals for the festival they held for it, he just let himself be a figurehead in the display because of his popularity with the people.
When he did support arrests and executions--the decisions didn't come in a vacuum. France was at war with European powers who said they would invade France and slaughter any man, woman or child who didn't immediately submit to a forced, foreign-implemented monarchy rule. Civil war was just as dangerous, and the slaughters in the Vendee (which he did not support, nor order) were preceded by slaughters of republicans, hence why Carrier & co were sent out there in the first place.
The laws that the Committee, including Robespierre, approved were basically meant to stop the threat of counter-revolution and treason in its tracks. The laws weren't unusual in terms of being very common in any country where civil war or foreign wars were occurring (basically 'we reserve the right to read all your correspondence, search your homes, and arrest you if we think you're doing anything to endanger the government.").
In the end, Robespierre was turned into a scapegoat for people who had done far more vile things than be one man on a Committee, and knew that he might turn on them to stop their actions.
>>341189
Maxy dindu nuffin
>>341216
What a well thought out, intelligent response!
>>338998
The terror and the laws behind it were well under way before Robespierre took the reigns. A lot of the blame goes to Brissot and Girondists for bringing royalists conspiracies into the main political discourse and then subsequently declaring war on the Habsburgs.
>>341189
>Robespierre did nothing wrong
(seriously though, great post - wish more people on /his/ would put forward solid arguments like this)
>>341351
Not gonna happen magically
>>>/qa/366197
Your vote counts!
Robespierre is a hero of mine. Not that he fought for this or that but his methods were something I admire. Is that wrong?
>>341189
Nice response. I just bought pic related and I'm looking forward to reading more and seeing if the author agrees.
>>338998
It's hard to blame just one man for mass hysteria.
>>339827
Oh god.. someone please put the crown on him. That face is worthy.
Why did these guys get thrown under the bus? I'm guessing the lack of culottes fucked em over once wealthier people started gaining more power.
Yeah, he was used as a scapegoat because some of the real criminals felt threatened by him and allied with the opposition to take him down along with his friends. It didn't work out so well in the end for them.
Also, the terror wasn't so bad. The civil war was.
But he deserved it for Danton and Camille Desmoulins.
All in all it was a learning experience.
>>344051
you questioned and answered your own question in the same post.
the low classes are useful during the initial and mid stages of an uprising or a rebellion - without them ot eat canister shots at close range a full scale revolution is never successful.
but once the things get more pacific they get throw back to their initial place since they're no longer needed.
>>341189
The original dindu
>>344301
>But he deserved it for Danton
No, Danton was an awful person and taking the decision to have him executed was the right one. He was also one of the main man conspirating against the newly birthed republic for personal gain and actively worked to make Robespierre the scapegoat.
Danton didn't do nothing.
He was not a good person but none of these guys were. He was killed at a time when he was actually involving himself less with politics.
There were a lot more people who should have been killed before him, but Robespierre went for the popular ones instead of the guilty ones.
Looking at his pre-terror point of view, it really looks like a scapegoat to me.
