The "Reign of Terror" which never took place and other misconceptions about the French Revolution

[loup99]

Frequently, both on this forum, and elsewhere, I have seen allusions to a supposed "reign of terror" during the French Revolution which would have been intentionally implemented as a system of government. References to speeches of revolutionaries are used as sources, every mention of the word "terror" being a retroactive and definitive proof. It goes without saying that it is the modern sense of the word which is used, despite the sources being from the end of the 18th century. In the worst of descriptions the "reign of terror" is supposed to have coincided with a personal dictatorship of Robespierre, who would have personally have had tyrannical control over the Committee of Public Safety, an organ described as having quasi-absolute power. The height of this myth is probably reached when the events are compared to Stalinism.

A bit of context is therefore necessary to debunk some of these myths. Here are a few compiled replies to some of the misconceptions. First of all, to say it once and for all, there was no "Reign of Terror". I know this statement might contradict some deeply held rooted visions, but it was in reality a term entirely coined by Robespierre's Thermidorian opponents to discredit him and his supporters after his death on the 28th of July 1794. Therefore when you use this name, you have to always keep that in mind. Throwing it around as if it were some "objective" description of the period and policies implemented is to ignore its origin, which is politically situated and served the agenda of the Thermidorians.

As for the word "terror" having been employed by the actors of the time, a few words as well to give more details. The revolutionaries refused to instate "terror on the order of the day", but in the rhetoric spoke about "inspiring terror" upon the "ennemies to justice". As shown by French historian Jean-Clément Martin, the belief that you should inspire "terror" is rooted in Antiquity, and that was the sense used by Robespierre when he spoke about inspiring terror to the ennemies of the Republic. Ultimately, "The Terror" with a capital "t", as forged by Thermidorians to attack and blame Robespierre for responsibilities he did not have, is not the same thing as using the word "terror". The invention of this term gave a name to a period which did not have any. There had been acts of considerable violence, like the Massacres of September or the war in Vendée, but up until the death of Robespierre he himself and the National Convention explicitly refused to say France had entered a "regime of terror".

The violence we see during the 1788-1794 period happens without clear directives from the state or determined policy, but the aims of controlling the popular movement to avoid them doing their own justice is central in the 1792-1794 phase. For political reasons Tallien, rival to Robespierre, after his death, stated that the past period had been "The Terror" and was the fault of Robespierre. With this in mind there was no system of terror, claiming that is both anachronistic and partisan. What you had was a period of revolutionnary government, with exceptional policies, including in courts. Consequently, if you want to speak about a revolutionnary government, during which the constitutional order was suspended, I would have no objections, and it would be a much more nuanced description of the period.

Robespierre was one amongst several members of the Committee of Public Safety, re-elected regularly as confidence in him was renewed, which was only one of several committees, permanently accountable to the National Convention. He never had any executive power on his own, and being a part of a parliamentary committee is very far from absolute power. Robespierre held the power of an influential member of Parliament, his charisma gave him a big audience and reputation, but that doesn't materialise into power. In fact, during key periods of tension, during which large numbers were sent before the guillotine, Robespierre withdrew entirely from said Committee and the National Convention. He is one of several revolutionaries who supported the phase of so-called revolutionnary government, but he is also one of those who rejected instating "terror on the order of the day" despite it being demanded by the most radical parts of the Parisian popular movement.

A few references (in French):
Hervé Leuwers, Robespierre, Fayard, 2014, 458 pages.
Jean-Clément Martin, Robespierre, la fabrication d'un monstre [Robespierre, the fabrication of a monster], Perrin, 2016, 368 pages.
Jean-Clément Martin, La Terreur. Vérités et légendes [The Reign of Terror. Truths and legends], Perrin, 2017, 238 pages.

 

[Kovax]

In other words, while "terror" certainly did occur during the period of revolutionary government, you're saying that it wasn't official policy. I would suspect that "inspiring terror" on the "enemies of justice", as phrased, would be seen as a "reign of terror" by those targeted. It's nuanced, but there still appears to be some kernel of truth behind the popular "myth". Whether Robespierre had any responsibility for the "terror" or not is open for discussion, but "terror" was a real thing at the time, and the revolutionary government, or at least some parts of it, was deeply involved.

 

[Geriander]

”t was just a year ago that I was the means of instituting the Revolutionary Tribunal; may God and man forgive me for what I did then; but it was not that it might become the scourge of humanity."

 

[loup99]

In other words, while "terror" certainly did occur during the period of revolutionary government, you're saying that it wasn't official policy. I would suspect that "inspiring terror" on the "enemies of justice", as phrased, would be seen as a "reign of terror" by those targeted. It's nuanced, but there still appears to be some kernel of truth behind the popular "myth". Whether Robespierre had any responsibility for the "terror" or not is open for discussion, but "terror" was a real thing at the time, and the revolutionary government, or at least some parts of it, was deeply involved.

The word "terror" in the antique sense, yes, absolutely. Not "Terror" in the contemporary or Thermidorian sense. Hence the capital "t" distinction. As for the revolutionary government being involved in implementing the exceptional measures, that is obvious. But those exceptional revolutionnary measures were to be a parenthesis, not a permanent system of government. A part of those measures were also to canalise popular violence and avoid escalating into terror as a system of government.

 

[Director]

It was basically a way for a ruling cabal to stay in power by throwing victims to the mob without regard for actual guilt, innocence or truth of allegation, merely for entertainment value and distraction.

It was official policy in that the men who were actually running the French government did it, over an over and over. I won't split hairs over the meaning of the word 'terror'; the people living under that rule were certainly held in check by their terror of being next.

You say it was not a 'permanent system of government' - presumably because it did not last for all eternity. This 'placate the mob with unwarranted executions for entertainment' did last for years - so my question to you is, exactly how long did it have to last for you to consider it 'permanent', and has ANY government or governing system ever lasted long enough to justify the word 'permanent'?

Your reasoning seems to follow the line that, if my Aunt Dora were to put on roller skates, we could split hairs and call her a self-propelled vehicle. I do not agree.

 

[loup99]

It was basically a way for a ruling cabal to stay in power by throwing victims to the mob without regard for actual guilt, innocence or truth of allegation, merely for entertainment value and distraction.

The revolutionnary government was a way to rule in a state of exception, exception both with regards to supposed "ennemies" of the Republic and those who amongst the people of Paris wanted to install a form of popular justice not controlled by revolutionnary institutions. The quote of Danton, Soyons terribles pour dispenser le peuple de l'être (Let us be terrible so as to exempt the people from being so.) is a good illustration of the tension with regards to the Parisian popular movement to avoid a repeat of the September Massacres. It is both an attempt at canalising that spontaneous justice and a harsh response in a context of war. There is no entertainment or distraction in this, that is where our appreciations diverge significantly.

It was official policy in that the men who were actually running the French government did it, over an over and over. I won't split hairs over the meaning of the word 'terror'; the people living under that rule were certainly held in check by their terror of being next.

The problem is that the supposed "reign of terror" intensified or at least continued when Robespierre and his allies died, under the supervision of the Thermidorians who coined the term to discredit Robespierre. In fact, some of the représentants en mission who had been the most brutal and repressive and feared facing justice because of that, such as Tallien, were those who pushed for the execution of Robespierre and supposedly ending the "reign of terror" as they were to describe it. Furthermore, you have to relativise. While the number of deaths is important, and exceptionally high on both sides in areas touched by civil war and strife (like Vendée, for both sides), an ordinary citizen in say Paris was not threatened by said revolutionnary government, other than potentially being the victim of restrictions of citizen implication, like when women's clubs were closed. But that citizen, if masculine, would still have considerably more to say than during the years to come and than in neighbouring countries. So claiming that "the people living under that rule were certainly held in check by their terror of being next" is false if you spoke of the general population, but true if you speak for the major political figures. From reading you one could think there were random executions by coin toss for fun, so I think that description should be nuanced.

You say it was not a 'permanent system of government' - presumably because it did not last for all eternity. This 'placate the mob with unwarranted executions for entertainment' did last for years - so my question to you is, exactly how long did it have to last for you to consider it 'permanent', and has ANY government or governing system ever lasted long enough to justify the word 'permanent'?

Again, there were zero executions "for entertainment", that is false. It is rather, "have exceptional revolutionnary courts to ennemies" to avoid a literal bloodbath. When talking about the revolutionnary government, that was definitely temporary, in the sense that it declared itself that. The National Convention wasn't temporary, even if it ultimately only lasted three years, it was meant to be permanent institutions accompanied by a constitution, which was suspended during revolutionnary government. So that should answer the latter part of your question. As for a high degree of political violence, keep in mind that this was already the case during the Ancien Régime in France. As early as in 1788 we see it, and earlier look at events in Corsica etc. Or violence in Europe in general, in Ireland, Belgium etc. Singling out France here and specifically the revolutionnary government is inappropriate. And within France, should we ignore for example the Day of the Tiles, because it happens before the storming of the Bastille? I don't think so. Therefore we have to separate the revolutionnary government as a temporary institution in emergency from popular violence in general.

Your reasoning seems to follow the line that, if my Aunt Dora were to put on roller skates, we could split hairs and call her a self-propelled vehicle. I do not agree.

The problem is if to discredit your Aunt Dora ill-willed people were to mock here and describe it as a "self-propelled vehicle" to ridicule her. Then using "self-propelled vehicle" becomes problematic as opposed to just roller skates. Especially if for centuries to come those malicious persons get to forge the story of your Aunt around their narrative of "self-propelled vehicle". In that case, you would think twice before using the term.

 

[Kovax]

So, the "temporary" measure to stem violent killings by the populace was for the government to do it themselves? As people rose to prominence in the power vacuum, they were subject to becoming the next round of victims, leading to the government and country at large becoming a monster consuming its own tail. As long as your neighbor had no reason to charge you with "crimes against the people", you were probably safe....probably. I'd still call that "terror".

I wouldn't call it "entertainment", more like "appeasement", in the way that one "appeases" a crocodile by throwing it victims until you're the last one left. The situation was clearly "temporary", as the supply of potential victims wasn't endless, but nearly so. As pointed out, I don't consider Robespierre exceptionally more (or less) guilty than the rest, but he wasn't innocent, as is clear from his own words.

 

[Geriander]

"I leave it all in a frightful welter, Not a man of them has an idea of government. Robespierre will follow me; he is dragged down by me. Ah, better to be a poor fisherman than to meddle with the government of men!"

 

[loup99]

So, the "temporary" measure to stem violent killings by the populace was for the government to do it themselves? As people rose to prominence in the power vacuum, they were subject to becoming the next round of victims, leading to the government and country at large becoming a monster consuming its own tail. As long as your neighbor had no reason to charge you with "crimes against the people", you were probably safe....probably. I'd still call that "terror".

I wouldn't call it "entertainment", more like "appeasement", in the way that one "appeases" a crocodile by throwing it victims until you're the last one left. The situation was clearly "temporary", as the supply of potential victims wasn't endless, but nearly so. As pointed out, I don't consider Robespierre exceptionally more (or less) guilty than the rest, but he wasn't innocent, as is clear from his own words.

People could have risen to prominence at the yearly elections, but those were suspended just as the constitutional order war. So de facto no one could rose "to prominence" during the period of revolutionnary government, other than maybe as a citizen-soldier engaged on the battlefield, in which case you could be elected as officer. Note by the way if you look at the social classes of the political leaders at the time, it is a specific category of the population. We have new actors of the bourgeoisie who can play a more central role than during the Ancien Régime (although they could still locally be influential prior to the Revolution), but even the smaller bourgeoisie of Paris, like shopkeepers or the working class areas like the Faubourg Saint-Antoine do not compare to some peasant living at the countryside. The fisherman Danton refers to would not have become a central actor. Up until 1793, the persons who would be denounced would be the nobles, the priests and the ministers of the king. After that legislation allows for a broader spectre of persons to be accused, although naturally the members of the National Convention had the most visibility (12% died, 86 of a total of 749). Amongst the 300 000 to 500 000 suspects as a consequence of the law of suspects, we have 17 000 persons who died as a consequence of being judged by a revolutionnary tribunal, whether in military, temporary or popular commission. To be a suspect was thus not necessarily to die.

That being said, the height of denunciation is not during the Montagnard National Convention (1793-1794) or the life of Robespierre, Danton etc, but after, during the Thermidorian National Convention (1794-1795). At this point the revolutionnary government had ended and the hunt for supposed "terrorists" to end the so-called "reign of terror" had started. This illustrates the whole problem, those who invented the term are once more those who are in a sense "the worst offenders".

Claiming Robespierre would have nothing to do with the revolutionnary government or Revolutionary Tribunal would be just false, by the way. I don't think anyone suggested there wasn't any abuse. Robespierre was neither an angel nor a monster. He was one of several actors, very charismatic, but never alone and never almighty, constantly accountable and always prone to periods of absence. At the end, someone humane, deeply influenced by his career as an avocate with a taste for the causes célèbres, interest for science and rhetorical skill.

 

[Geriander]

"My only regret is that I'm going before that rat, Robespierre! Don't forget to show my head to the people; it's well worth seeing."

 

[loup99]

"My only regret is that I'm going before that rat, Robespierre! Don't forget to show my head to the people; it's well worth seeing."

Danton had a sense of catchphrases, as illustrated both by the sentences you quote leading up to his death and the other one I quoted. Another famous quote is from the 2nd of September 1792, Le tocsin qu'on va sonner n'est point un signal d'alarme, c'est la charge sur les ennemis de la patrie. Pour les vaincre, il nous faut de l'audace, encore de l'audace, toujours de l'audace, et la France sera sauvée ! (The tocsin that we are going to sound is not a signal of alarm, it is the charge on the enemies of the fatherland. To defeat them, we need audacity, more audacity, always audacity, and France will be saved!) France won the battle of Valmy on the 20th of September 1792.

 

[Geriander]

More relevant to the topic on hand:

"At last I perceive that in revolutions the supreme power rests with the most abandoned."

"You [Robespierre] will follow us soon. Your house will be beaten down and salt sown in the place where it stood."

Well that certainly happened, as noted the reaction to the Terror (White Terror) ended up bloodier than the Terror itself.



Now I am done with Danton and will need to find some other quotable victim of the Terror.

 

[loup99]

Well that certainly happened, as noted the reaction to the Terror (White Terror) ended up bloodier than the Terror itself.

The concept of "White Terror" is just as faulty as the one of "Terror" itself, for the aforementioned reasons. It would befar too simple to show how the "Reign of Terror" did not happen and was entirely constructed afterwards, and then commit the same mistake forging a "White Terror". Even "Thermidorian Reaction" is sort of misleading, considering many of those who engaged in Thermidor had been major Montagnard protagonists previously. Can you "react" against yourself? And even before the death of Robespierre, Saint-Just, who was to follow him in the tomb, aptly spoke of a "glaced Revolution" (La révolution est glacée, tous les principes sont affaiblis).

Now I am done with Danton and will need to find some other quotable victim of the Terror.

Well, the main victim of the theorisation of the concept of "Terror" is Robespierre himself. Because it was around a supposed "Terror" that would have ended with his death that the black legend was conceived. But also his brother Augustin, Saint-Just and Couthon. So you have a lot of quotes there.

 

[Geriander]

The concept of "White Terror" is just as faulty as the one of "Terror" itself, for the aforementioned reasons. It would befar too simple to show how the "Reign of Terror" did not happen and was entirely constructed afterwards, and then commit the same mistake forging a "White Terror". Even "Thermidorian Reaction" is sort of misleading, considering many of those who engaged in Thermidor had been major Montagnard protagonists previously. Can you "react" against yourself? And before the death of Robespierre, Saint-Just aptly spoke of a "glaced Revolution" (La révolution est glacée, tous les principes sont affaiblis).


Well, the main victims of the theorisation of the forged concept of "Terror" is Robespierre himself. Because it was around a supposed "Terror" that would have ended with his death that the black legend was conceived. But also Saint-Just, Couthon and his brother Augustin. So you have a lot of quotes there.

Ok, as ”the Terror” is a retroactive label by the reactionaries I will try to use the contemporary label from Danton and call it the scourge of humanity.

 

[loup99]

More seriously, why not just use the simple and modern term "political violence"? That way you show how it wasn't specific to the French Revolution, how it happened across Europe and was much more general. To talk about the 17 000 who died as a consequence of being judged by the revolutionnary tribunal you can talk of intensification of the violence in a context of civil war, how it interacts with the concepts of "order and disorder", and how the government, after proclaiming itself "revolutionnary" tried to canalise popular violence and fight supposed ennemies of the Revolution in defining "good citizens". Coining a specific "Terror" or "White Terror", supposedly the summum of horror, specific to France, is just incorrect and gives a deforming lens to the whole chain of events. It excludes terrible events like the Septembre Massacres in 1792 and arbitrarily cuts chronology at points when there is continuity. If you want to create periods, you have the phase where the Brissotins/Girondins dominate, the one of the Montagnards and then that of the Thermidorians, during the National Convention.

 

[Geriander]

More seriously, why not just use the simple and modern term "political violence"? That way you show how it wasn't specific to the French Revolution, how it happened across Europe and was much more general. To talk about the 17 000 who died as a consequence of being judged by the revolutionnary tribunal you can talk of intensification of the violence in a context of civil war, how it interacts with the concepts of "order and disorder", and how the government, after proclaiming itself "revolutionnary" tried to canalise popular violence and fight supposed ennemies of the Revolution in defining "good citizens". Coining a specific "Terror" or "White Terror", supposedly the summum of horror, specific to France, is just incorrect and gives a deforming lens to the whole chain of events. It excludes terrible events like the Septembre Massacres in 1792 and arbitrarily cuts chronology at points when there is continuity. If you want to create periods, you have the phase where the Brissotins/Girondins dominate, the one of the Montagnards and then that of the Thermidorians, during the National Convention.

Labeling historical events generally requires arbitrary chronological cut-off points, thats true for the Revolution itself. Unigue names, such as The Scourge of Humanity (henceforth referred to as "the Scourge" to save time) are also useful to distinguish one set of events from another. The "political violence in France" pretty much covers the whole Revolutionary period and it is useful to have distinct labels for segments of that political violence. The Scourge got a harsher reputation (and label) than most political violence of the same scale due to the victims largely being from the privileged classes. You may find this unfair but I would prefer to come up with worse labels for other periods of political violence rather than to downplay the Scourge by referring to it as something as generic as "political violence".

 

[loup99]

Labeling historical events generally requires arbitrary chronological cut-off points, thats true for the Revolution itself. Unigue names, such as The Scourge of Humanity (henceforth referred to as "the Scourge" to save time) are also useful to distinguish one set of events from another. The "political violence in France" pretty much covers the whole Revolutionary period and it is useful to have distinct labels for segments of that political violence. The Scourge got a harsher reputation (and label) than most political violence of the same scale due to the victims largely being from the privileged classes. You may find this unfair but I would prefer to come up with worse labels for other periods of political violence rather than to downplay the Scourge by referring to it as something as generic as "political violence".

Labelling a period comes with a lot of problems. When a specific group of people, politically situated, gives a label to a period, you have to think twice before reusing it. A bit like the name which comes to mind when reading your post, "The Scourge of God" to refer to Atilla, generally isn't retained today, "The Terror" is similar. Anyone seriously writing "Scourge of God" in a thread about the Huns would seem very biased and partial, without critical distance to the sources. The labels I suggested, namely the three phases of the Convention, are also retroactive, but have the benefit of cutting at points of time when the political majorities clearly change, and thus also the politics carried out. While these factions were lose and did not identify as such, to the point that "factionalism" was a motive of accusation before the revolutionnary tribunal, there are clear ruptures. The point I have stressed is that there is no clearly defined segment of "The Terror", it is entirely arbitrary by protagonists who had the sole aim of discrediting Robespierre. Therefore you are wrong if you think you referring to a "segment" when employing the term, it could as much concern the entire period of 1788-1799 as it could just be for the years 1793-1795. Furthermore, it is not to downplay the death of 17 000 persons to realise that some of those carrying out the sentences should not be those determining whose death counts or not.

 

[Yakman]

Clearly the period of the Revolution where Robespierre dominated the government in Paris is distinct from before, where he did not, and afterwards, where again, he did not.

That period was marked by a level of political violence which had not been seen before during the French Revolution, and where indeed, people were arrested on trumped up charges, thrown in front of kangaroo courts / star chambers, and executed. That's for the famous ones, not the nameless anti-Revolutionary forces outside the country who were similarly slain.

The Thermidorians made up a name to justify their 'reaction' [which gave rise to another name...], and it stuck. Maybe it will change one day, like as you said 'The Scourge of God' monniker, while still used for Atilla personally, is generally not applied to the Hunnic Wars anymore.

But 'The Reign of Terror' is still the commonly used name for the time, and it is not altogether inappropriate, as figures from both the ancien regime and committed revolutionaries alike were beheaded at the command of Robespierre, Saint-Just, & co. And when its taken from Robespierre's own words?

It's fine.

 

[loup99]

Clearly the period of the Revolution where Robespierre dominated the government in Paris is distinct from before, where he did not, and afterwards, where again, he did not.

That period was marked by a level of political violence which had not been seen before during the French Revolution, and where indeed, people were arrested on trumped up charges, thrown in front of kangaroo courts / star chambers, and executed. That's for the famous ones, not the nameless anti-Revolutionary forces outside the country who were similarly slain.

No, that is wrong on some accounts, but I'm happy you brought it up since it allows to clear things up. The Girondins tried to get rid of the Montagnards, but they failed due to the people of Paris mobilising. Several institutions which were used during the Montagnard Convention had also been instituted under Girondin/Brissotin control. Like for example the Revolutionary Tribunal itself. Robespierre had considerable influence over the Paris Commune, even if dominate might be excessive. Is that what you refer to when talking about "government in Paris"? Or are you referring to the legislative branch of power? In that case Robespierre never came to dominate it, and never tried to either. He was one amongst 14 members of the Committee of Public Safety, accountable before the National Convention. Someone who repeatedly leaves public life for weeks, including during the most deadly periods, can per definition not "pull the strings". As for when he died (the point at which he clearly can not "dominate" anything), that is when political violence rises to its height.

The Thermidorians made up a name to justify their 'reaction' [which gave rise to another name...], and it stuck. Maybe it will change one day, like as you said 'The Scourge of God' monniker, while still used for Atilla personally, is generally not applied to the Hunnic Wars anymore.

But 'The Reign of Terror' is still the commonly used name for the time, and it is not altogether inappropriate, as figures from both the ancien regime and committed revolutionaries alike were beheaded at the command of Robespierre, Saint-Just, & co. And when its taken from Robespierre's own words?

Another series of things to clarify. Why do you exclusively name Montagnards like Robespierre or Saint-Just, and no Girondins or Thermidorian? Are they included in "co"? As for "Reign of Terror", it is "commonly" used, but by who? The historians I referred to, who have studied the period extensively, never use it without critical distance. I frequently see it thrown around without that distance. When I read that the executions were supposedly for "entertainment" without further justification, I feel that a thread wasn't out of place. Furthermore, it is not taken from Robespierre's words, since Robespierre explicitly rejected terror on the order of the day, as a system of government.

 

[Yakman]

No, that is wrong on some accounts, but I'm happy you brought it up since it allows to clear things up. The Girondins tried to get rid of the Montagnards, but they failed due to the people of Paris mobilising. Several institutions which were used during the Montagnard Convention had also been instituted under Girondin/Brissotin control. Like for example the Revolutionary Tribunal itself. Robespierre had considerable influence over the Paris Commune, even if dominate might be excessive. Is that what you refer to when talking about "government in Paris"? Or are you referring to the legislative branch of power? In that case Robespierre never came to dominate it, and never tried to either. He was one amongst 14 members of the Committee of Public Safety, accountable before the National Convention. Someone who repeatedly leaves public life for weeks, including during the most deadly periods, can per definition not "pull the strings". As for when he died (the point at which he clearly can not "dominate" anything), that is when political violence rises to its height.

Another series of things to clarify. Why do you exclusively name Montagnards like Robespierre or Saint-Just, and no Girondins or Thermidorian? Are they included in "co"? As for "Reign of Terror", it is "commonly" used, but by who? The historians I referred to, who have studied the period extensively, never use it without critical distance. I frequently see it thrown around without that distance. When I read that the executions were supposedly for "entertainment" without further justification, I feel that a thread wasn't out of place. Furthermore, it is not taken from Robespierre's words, since Robespierre explicitly rejected terror on the order of the day, as a system of government.

so, if Robespierre never tried to dominate the committee on public safety, and was just another guy there, one of 14, why stage a coup against him? why, after the coup against him, was there not continuity of government policy? he's just a bloke, right? nobody important?