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

[loup99]

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?

Coup is a big word for the 9th Thermidor, you can't organise a coup against someone who does not hold power. What you can do in a system where power is shared and accountable is to ally tactically to eliminate an opponent which has more prestige and influence than you. As for why there was not continuity, yes, it is true that the scale of political violence intensified markedly after Robespierre's death. That is a clear rupture, things became bloodier. But that and other evolutions does not stem from Robespierre himself alone, but rather a change of composition and consequently majority in the National Convention and in the Committee of Public Safety, especially once the 80 Girondins had been reintegrated. Nonetheless, Robespierre had already himself contributed to "glacing" the Revolution, something which was accentuated after him. By closing women's clubs and making the section meetings no longer daily, there was an effort to marginalise the Parisian popular movement. As for Robespierre having been important and influential, that is obvious. However, describing him as the sole key protagonist or talking of personal rule is wrong.

 

[Director]

Robespierre was willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands - even the lives of friends and fellow revolutionaries - in order to stay in power. And his every wish and whim was - heh - executed as though it was the dictat of a monarch. So 'personal rule'? Yes - no matter the language you dress it in, a dictator is still a dictator and one who consents in and profits from mass murder is a monster, without regard for what he wished to do or whether or not he supported science.

The American Civil War is called that despite it not actually being a civil war; the more appropriate 'War of Southern Secession' never took hold. The Hundred Years War wasn't, and neither was the Thirty Years War or the Protestant Reformation. The blood-soaked period between the collapse of the French monarchy and the rise of Napoleon is going to be called the 'Reign of Terror' no matter what we think of the name. Personally I think it's quite apt; your mileage may differ, but the name has stuck.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

Robespierre? Wasn't he like the coffee guy?

 

[loup99]

Robespierre was willing to sacrifice the lives of thousands - even the lives of friends and fellow revolutionaries - in order to stay in power. And his every wish and whim was - heh - executed as though it was the dictat of a monarch. So 'personal rule'? Yes - no matter the language you dress it in, a dictator is still a dictator and one who consents in and profits from mass murder is a monster, without regard for what he wished to do or whether or not he supported science.

I'm sorry Director, but while you are probably quite knowledgeable about the American Revolution and your Civil War, this description of Robespierre is just factually wrong and doesn't hold up to any evidence. First of all, Robespierre never personally controlled the Revolutionary Tribunal, which I remind you once more, was instituted during Girondin rule, by Danton amongst others. If you seriously claim Robespierre was a "dictator" during Girondin rule, then you need to revise the basic chronology of the French Revolution. Secondly, Robespierre lost several key votes during the entire period, in fact all decisions, prior to him entering the Committee of Public Safety and afterwards, were the object of discussion and compromise between its members. A dictator has to actually exerce executive power personally, and is not accountable on a monthly basis to Parliament. Furthermore, a dictator is not absent from power for long periods, that simply does not exist. If Robespierre had been a dictator reigning out of blood thirst, how do you explain his lengthy absences from the Committee of Public Safety? How do you explain his repeated losses and the fact that he fails to mobilise for his ideas? How do you explain the collective nature of all the instances he ever sat in? How do you explain that he repeatedly hesitated to withdraw entirely?

It is possible to be very notorious without being a dictator. Since you refer a lot to the US, let us compare with some contemporary actors who are famous but certainly not dictatorial. Would you say Bernie Sanders is the US dictator, despite him having more name recognition than most other senators? Or that AOC dictates her wishes upon your House of Representatives? Do they, just out of name recognition get "every wish and whim executed as though it was the dictat of a monarch"? No, in fact most legislation they supported during the Trump years did not pass, especially since the Democrats, let alone the left-wing of the party, didn't have a majority in the Senate. The same thing applies to Robespierre, very influential and charismatic, but losing key moments and having to compromise. The Montagnards depended on support of the Plaine in the National Convention. There is no point at which the Committee of Public Safety was entirely homogenous, even if it true that some members remained a part of it for longer periods. Being ascendant within a given group, like the Club of the Jacobins, does not mean controlling the Committee of Public Safety, let alone the National Convention.

The American Civil War is called that despite it not actually being a civil war; the more appropriate 'War of Southern Secession' never took hold. The Hundred Years War wasn't, and neither was the Thirty Years War or the Protestant Reformation. The blood-soaked period between the collapse of the French monarchy and the rise of Napoleon is going to be called the 'Reign of Terror' no matter what we think of the name. Personally I think it's quite apt; your mileage may differ, but the name has stuck.

And Stalin will be called the "little father of the peoples", since through successful propaganda the name stuck so I suppose you will continue to use it, no matter what we think of it, right? Another example of how using names forged with a political aim has to come with critical distance. The term "Reign of Terror" is just like that of "little father of the peoples", aiming to push for the interest of a certain group or person. In one case to propagate for Stalin, in the other to absolve the Thermidorians.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Well that whole thing ended at the battle of Belle Alliance.

 

[Kovax]

One might amend the "Reign of Terror" to "Early Reign of Terror" versus "Late..." (post Robespierre), but it was indeed a reign of terror, so the name isn't wrong, it just doesn't adequately cover the latter period which was ALSO a "reign of terror". Propaganda is far more effective when it's not actually wrong, just misleading, and this is a fine example of that.

One can argue that the Thermidorians downplayed their own crimes against humanity by placing the blame on the earlier leaders, but those earlier leaders were by no means innocent, so a good potion of the blame is still placed where it belongs. Recognizing that Robespierre and his associates were responsible for atrocities does not absolve the later group of their own crimes. Robespierre may not have been anywhere close to being a "dictator", but he was certainly highly influential within the small circle which held power, and consequently can be held responsible for at least some of the actions. Regardless of whether it was as one of a few prominent members of a larger group or as an individual, he cannot be excused for what he did and assisted in doing.

Arguing that a "Reign of Terror" never took place flies in the face of the evidence, even it it wasn't quite as bad as popular myths have portrayed it.

 

[loup99]

One might amend the "Reign of Terror" to "Early Reign of Terror" versus "Late..." (post Robespierre), but it was indeed a reign of terror, so the name isn't wrong, it just doesn't adequately cover the latter period which was ALSO a "reign of terror". Propaganda is far more effective when it's not actually wrong, just misleading, and this is a fine example of that.

Do you also describe the American War of Independence as a "Reign of Terror" and "crimes against humanity"? The Brabant Revolution? The Irish Rebellion of 1798? The French conquest of Corsica? In that case are endless "reigns of terror" of this nature, just the fact that people died does not mean you have a systemic mode of government based upon terror, and even less "crimes against humanity".

One can argue that the Thermidorians downplayed their own crimes against humanity by placing the blame on the earlier leaders, but those earlier leaders were by no means innocent, so a good potion of the blame is still placed where it belongs. Recognizing that Robespierre and his associates were responsible for atrocities does not absolve the later group of their own crimes. Robespierre may not have been anywhere close to being a "dictator", but he was certainly highly influential within the small circle which held power, and consequently can be held responsible for at least some of the actions. Regardless of whether it was as one of a few prominent members of a larger group or as an individual, he cannot be excused for what he did and assisted in doing.

There were no "crimes against humanity", neither during Thermidorian rule nor prior to that at any point during the French Revolution. Abusive death sentences, drowning or civil wars do not constitute "crimes against humanity", and the term is completely anachronistic anyway. It is much more adequate to talk about a political usage of exceptional judicial institutions to contain uncontrolled political violence and silence ennemies. Does Robespierre amongst others have a part of responsibility in instituting a form of revolutionnary government and exception justice which oversaw the death of 17 000 persons? Yes, of course. In fact I broadly agree with what you said in this paragraph, except for when you abusively describe it to be "crimes against humanity".

Arguing that a "Reign of Terror" never took place flies in the face of the evidence, even it it wasn't quite as bad as popular myths have portrayed it.

Because that wording is Thermidorian propaganda from the beginning of the end, as the sources show us. If you have a source suggesting otherwise, feel free to share it with us!

 

[Director]

Do you also describe the American War of Independence as a "Reign of Terror" and "crimes against humanity"?

There were no "crimes against humanity", neither during Thermidorian rule nor prior to that at any point during the French Revolution.

I can provide you with a complete list of all of the political enemies guillotined during the American Revolution. Here it is:
...
...
...
Want another copy?


No 'crimes against humanity' inclines me to think that you either do not understand English or do not understand the meaning of a 'crime against humanity'.

I do not know what you are using for the basis of your argument, but as it so directly seems to oppose what we know of as conventional history, it should either contain extraordinary proof or be disregarded. I have seen no proof, extraordinary or otherwise, and so do not buy your arguments.


Whatever you intend to say, do not start from 'as all sources unanimously show us', which is demonstrably false and patently ridiculous. There is no subject in the history of humanity upon which 'all sources unanimously show us'.

 

[loup99]

I can provide you with a complete list of all of the political enemies guillotined during the American Revolution. Here it is:
...
...
...
Want another copy?

So what? The fact that the guillotine, a far more humane execution method than the previous ones, was used, makes Revolutionary France the height of terror as opposed to the US? I think you should focus less on the execution method and more on the fact that the death of these 17 000 persons in the context of political violence is no exception if we compare internationally and across time in French history. The American Revolution is one example of an armed conflict which was bloody. If you start calling any politically motivated execution through guillotine to be a "Reign of Terror", then France for over a century is in constant terror. It is really problematic to single out a loosely defined period, which no one is capable of dating, on the basis of propaganda originating from a specific faction with select interests in framing a narrative.

No 'crimes against humanity' inclines me to think that you either do not understand English or do not understand the meaning of a 'crime against humanity'.

I do not know what you are using for the basis of your argument, but as it so directly seems to oppose what we know of as conventional history, it should either contain extraordinary proof or be disregarded. I have seen no proof, extraordinary or otherwise, and so do not buy your arguments.

The burden of proof lies on the person claiming that there were "crimes against humanity" during the French Revolution. What I merely pointed out was that "crimes against humanity" as a notion was coined in 1945 in the context of Nuremberg, more than a century after the events we discuss in this thread. I do not see it as an appropriate label for a Revolution or a situation of civil war since there were no attempts of systematically violating fundamental rights (presumably those proclaimed at the time, again, you can't retroactively apply 1945 standards). That is not to say the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 and that of 1793 were perfect or entirely respected, certainly not given that women's rights were not upheld, that slaves had to rise up to allow for abolition against the interests of slave trading colonial lobbies and that voting rights of the less affluent kept being challenged. The fact that ordinary judicial procedures were not upheld does however not in my view constitute a "crime against humanity".

Whatever you intend to say, do not start from 'as all sources unanimously show us', which is demonstrably false and patently ridiculous. There is no subject in the history of humanity upon which 'all sources unanimously show us'.

What I meant to stress is that the term "Reign of Terror" was coined by the Thermidorians and used as a retroactive label to discredit Robespierre and those supporting his views, amongst other Montagnards. No source contests that it was forged. I really don't see the point in insisting in using a term of propaganda "because it stuck" when the documents from the period show how it is tied to the Thermidorians. And of course, you won't find any writing from say Robespierre theorising a "Reign of Terror", all of his writings do show us that. I can't prove a negative however, ultimately I am the only one to have cited references in this discussion. If necessary I can give more detailed bibliography with quotes and page numbers, but I don't want to turn this thread into a monologue.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

@Stuckenschmidt

I blame you for this. It was all quiet and you had to poke the bear.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

So what? The fact that the guillotine, a far more humane execution method than the previous ones, was used, makes Revolutionary France the height of terror as opposed to the US? I think you should focus less on the execution method and more on the fact that the death of these 17 000 persons in the context of political violence is no exception if we compare internationally and across time in French history. The American Revolution is one example of an armed conflict which was bloody. If you start calling any politically motivated execution through guillotine to be a "Reign of Terror", then France for over a century is in constant terror. It is really problematic to single out a loosely defined period, which no one is capable of dating, on the basis of propaganda originating from a specific faction with select interests in framing a narrative.

That's disingenuous. He wasn't talking about method. There were only a handful of executions of any kind through the entire revolution & war.

Some tarring-and-feathering of customs officials I suppose.

It was remarkably un-bloody.

 

[loup99]

@Stuckenschmidt

I blame you for this. It was all quiet and you had to poke the bear.

What does Stucki have to do with this? Neither you nor him have intervened in this thread so far.

That's disingenuous. He wasn't talking about method. There were only a handful of executions of any kind through the entire revolution & war.

Some tarring-and-feathering of customs officials I suppose.

It was remarkably un-bloody.

Any military conflict leads to bloodshed, the American Revolution is no exception. The point I was making is if we are to single out a specific conflict as particularly bloody or deadly on the side of the authorities, I think neither the events up to the independence of the US nor those of the French Revolution stick out, since other events prior or after that are either of an equivalent deadliness or deadlier. If you were to add up the immense death toll from the civil war in Vendée with the 17 000 from politically motivated trials, then the number is considerably more important, but the chronology of Vendée does not follow that of political violence largely centred around the capital so you end up with both apples and oranges.

Furthermore, the problem I have with some of the reasonings in this thread is that you only seem to see only the executions from the revolutionary tribunal, and never the acquittals. In this exceptional form of justice you could be just as much condemned quickly as you could be acquitted expeditiously (with the Law of 22 Prairial everything accelerates, since only two potential sentences are left: acquittal or death). This is not to claim the trials were fair or balanced, certainly not. The problem is if you add up the death toll without seeing those who were exonerated, because then you end up with a very incomplete view of the revolutionary justice. According to the historian of law Jean-Louis Halpérin the revolutionnary tribunal gave an average 24 % of death sentences until September 1793.

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

I love doing historical walks when I visit famous cities. Not the touristy ones, I like to construct my own.

So one of the times I was in Paris, I had just come out of a deep dive into the Marquis de Condorcet, so I decided to track down his life's movements through the streets. I found his home, his workplace, his hangouts, his print-shop, and finally the home of a lady in whose attic he hid in for a year after being sentenced to death for denouncing the CPS's terror. Hidden in this attic, despite the circumstances of the world around him, he managed to find enough optimism to write down his great Esquisse. I found his friend's home, who risked death for not denouncing his hiding spot, and I counted the steps it took to flee on that night when he heard that his attic had been revealed, and the guard were on their way. I followed the path he took to sneak outside the city, to the suburban homes of friends who turned him away out of fear. I went as far as the exact location of the suburban inn tavern, where the great man, hungry, tired and exhausted, could fly no more, where he was finally captured. And I found where he was interrogated by the revolutionary committee and the exact location where he was held that night, and unwilling to face the guillotine, where he finally took his own life before dawn broke. And I think I found the place (now a little parking lot) where lay the the mass grave he was dumped into.

Ten months in hiding. If he had only held out for a couple more, he would have survived.

It was a sad adventure. But worth doing.

Of course, ironically, I blame Condorcet as indirectly responsible the Terror. He was charged to write a constitution for the French Republic. But he took so long in drafting it, making sure it was so wonderful and perfect, that the republic dragged on without any constitution, allowing the CPS to abscond ever-greater executive power for itself in the meantime. Had it come out and been adopted earlier, France would have had a functional government, and the worst of the nightmare would have been avoided.

And oh, it included a clause abolishing the death penalty.

So don't procrastinate on your homework kids. Or thousands of people will die.

 

[loup99]

I love doing historical walks when I visit famous cities. Not the touristy ones, I like to construct my own.

In Paris though there is the newly inaugurated Parcours Révolution which is really worth the walk. Not really a "touristy" one since the website/app guides you through an interactive path (as you will note, the website refers to the "Great Terror" within quotation marks and explicitly contextualises about "the dark legend of the 'Terror' ")

 

[Abdul Goatherd]

In Paris though there is the newly inaugurated Parcours Révolution which is really worth the walk. Not really a "touristy" one since the website/app guides you through an interactive path (as you will note, the website refers to the "Great Terror" within quotation marks).

They don't have Condorcet's attic.

There's actually a lot in Paris, and it pisses me off how badly its marked. I constructed a Karl Marx & Pals path once, and there were no markers for any of it.

 

[loup99]

Of course, ironically, I blame Condorcet as indirectly responsible the Terror. He was charged to write a constitution for the French Republic. But he took so long in drafting it, making sure it was so wonderful and perfect, that the republic dragged on without any constitution, allowing the CPS to abscond for itself the executive power in the meantime. Had it come out and been adopted earlier, France would have had a functional government, and the nightmare would have been avoided.

This is wrong chronologically. The state of emergency meant the Constitution of 1793, conceived by the Montagnards, never went into application. The Girondin constitutional project was abandoned at that point. The French Republic had a proper constitution during the entire period, but it was suspended. It certainly didn't depend on Condorcet.

There's actually a lot in Paris, and it pisses me off how badly its marked. I constructed a Karl Marx & Pals path once, and there were no markers for any of it.

The Parcours Révolution has just been opened, still very much work in progress. Condorcet might get some love eventually. A bipartisan political initiative initially, it has been entirely conceived by the City of Paris' Historical Commission.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

What does Stucki have to do with this? Neither you nor him have intervened in this thread so far.


Any military conflict leads to bloodshed, the American Revolution is no exception. The point I was making is if we are to single out a specific conflict as particularly bloody or deadly on the side of the authorities, I think neither the events up to the independence of the US nor those of the French Revolution stick out, since other events prior or after that are either of an equivalent deadliness or deadlier. If you were to add up the immense death toll from the civil war in Vendée with the 17 000 from politically motivated trials, then the number is considerably more important, but the chronology of Vendée does not follow that of political violence largely centred around the capital so you end up with both apples and oranges.

Furthermore, the problem I have with some of the reasonings in this thread is that you only seem to see only the executions from the revolutionary tribunal, and never the acquittals. In this exceptional form of justice you could be just as much condemned quickly as you could be acquitted expeditiously (with the Law of 22 Prairial everything accelerates, since only two potential sentences are left: acquittal or death). This is not to claim the trials were fair or balanced, certainly not. The problem is if you add up the death toll without seeing those who were exonerated, because then you end up with a very incomplete view of the revolutionary justice. According to the historian of law Jean-Louis Halpérin the revolutionnary tribunal gave an average 24 % of death sentences until September 1793.

He name dropped you, and this thread in particular, the other day. We share a mutual opinion of your ability to not make a point. And then you started this back up. So I blame @Stuckenschmidt

I would not have elaborated, but you asked.

I have nothing more to add. Enjoy making excuses for Robespierre.

 

[loup99]

He name dropped you, and this thread in particular, the other day. We share a mutual opinion of your inability to make a point. And then you started this back up. So I blame @Stuckenschmidt

I would not have elaborated, but you asked.

I, apparently naively, thought your initial comment was related to the thread topic. Reminder that this thread is about the so-called "Reign of Terror" and why it is not a pertinent label, not about your personal opinions about other posters. If you consider any point to be vague you can mention it directly and I will do my best to address it. The same applies for Stucki, naturally.

If you are not interested about the French Revolution, it is your lucky day, because you have ten threads about Nazi Germany and on top of that ten others about Finland which have been posted in the latest year.

 

[Andre Bolkonsky]

I have tremendous interest in the French Revolution.

Not a huge fan of the comic book retelling of the events one finds in this general vicinity.

Regarding @Jopa79 and his desire to educate himself and the forum regarding Finnish history, I’m a big fan - can’t get enough.

 

[loup99]

Not a huge fan of the comic book retelling of the events one finds in this general vicinity.

There is actually a rather good comic book about Robespierre, if that is your cup of tea, even though it is necessarily a piece of vulgarisation. Robespierre by Hervé Leuwers, Mathieu Gabella et Roberto Meli from the editor Glénat. Only available in French though, so I'm not sure you would be able to enjoy it.