5. Defending Terror

5.
Defending Terror

Maximilien Robespierre, Report on the Principles of Political Morality (1794)

Despite the momentous events of the first two years of the Revolution, even more radical changes were yet to come. With pressures mounting at home and the threat of war looming abroad, in 1792 the National Convention abolished the monarchy and established the first French Republic. A year later, the government set up the Committee of Public Safety to defend the Revolution from its enemies. To this end, the committee instituted a set of emergency measures known as the Terror to crush all forms of dissent. Maximilien Robespierre (1758–1794), the leader of the committee, was a driving force behind the radicalization of the Revolution. In a speech delivered to the National Convention on February 5, 1794, excerpted here, he set forth his political vision. As he argued, virtue was the soul of the republic. With the republic fighting for its very survival, terror flowed from virtue in the form of swift and firm justice; neither could succeed without the other. At the time, Robespierre and his allies were the targets of increasingly strong criticism, for many believed that the Terror had achieved its goals and should now be dismantled. Robespierre met his critics head on, holding up terror as the sword of liberty.

From Richard Bienvenu, ed., The Ninth of Thermidor: The Fall of Robespierre (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968), 33–36, 38–39.

What is the goal toward which we are heading? The peaceful enjoyment of liberty and equality; the reign of that eternal justice whose laws have been inscribed, not in marble and stone, but in the hearts of all men, even in that of the slave who forgets them and in that of the tyrant who denies them.

We seek an order of things in which all the base and cruel passions are enchained, all the beneficent and generous passions are awakened by the laws; where ambition becomes the desire to merit glory and to serve our country; where distinctions are born only of equality itself; where the citizen is subject to the magistrate, the magistrate to the people, and the people to justice; where our country assures the well-being of each individual, and where each individual proudly enjoys our country’s prosperity and glory; where every soul grows greater through the continual flow of republican sentiments, and by the need of deserving the esteem of a great people; where the arts are the adornments of the liberty which ennobles them and commerce the source of public wealth rather than solely the monstrous opulence of a few families.

In our land we want to substitute morality for egotism, integrity for formal codes of honor, principles for customs, a sense of duty for one of mere propriety, the rule of reason for the tyranny of fashion, scorn of vice for scorn of the unlucky, self-respect for insolence, grandeur of soul for vanity, love of glory for the love of money, good people in place of good society. We wish to substitute merit for intrigue, genius for wit, truth for glamor, the charm of happiness for sensuous boredom, the greatness of man for the pettiness of the great, a people who are magnanimous, powerful, and happy, in place of a kindly, frivolous, and miserable people—which is to say all the virtues and all the miracles of the republic in place of all the vices and all the absurdities of the monarchy.

We want, in a word, to fulfill nature’s desires, accomplish the destiny of humanity, keep the promises of philosophy, absolve providence from the long reign of crime and tyranny. Let France, formerly illustrious among the enslaved lands, eclipsing the glory of all the free peoples who have existed, become the model for the nations, the terror of oppressors, the consolation of the oppressed, the ornament of the world—and let us, in sealing our work with our blood, see at least the early dawn of universal bliss—that is our ambition, that is our goal.

What kind of government can realize these wonders? Only a democratic or republican government—these two words are synonyms, despite the abuses in common speech, because an aristocracy is no closer than a monarchy to being a republic. Democracy is not a state in which the people, continually meeting, regulate for themselves all public affairs, still less is it a state in which a tiny fraction of the people, acting by isolated, hasty, and contradictory measures, decide the fate of the whole society. Such a government has never existed, and it could exist only to lead the people back into despotism.

Democracy is a state in which the sovereign people, guided by laws which are of their own making, do for themselves all that they can do well, and by their delegates do all that they cannot do for themselves.

It is therefore in the principles of democratic government that you should seek the rules for your political conduct.

But, in order to lay the foundations of democracy among us and to consolidate it, in order to arrive at the peaceful reign of constitutional laws, we must finish the war of liberty against tyranny and safely cross through the storms of the revolution: that is the goal of the revolutionary system which you have put in order. You should therefore still base your conduct upon the stormy circumstances in which the republic finds itself; and the plan of your administration should be the result of the spirit of revolutionary government, combined with the general principles of democracy.

Now, what is the fundamental principle of popular or democratic government, that is to say, the essential mainspring which sustains it and makes it move? It is virtue. I speak of the public virtue which worked so many wonders in Greece and Rome and which ought to produce even more astonishing things in republican France—that virtue which is nothing other than the love of the nation and its laws.

But as the essence of the republic or of democracy is equality, it follows that love of country necessarily embraces the love of equality.

There are important consequences to be drawn immediately from the principles we have just explained.

Since the soul of the Republic is virtue, equality, and since your goal is to found, to consolidate the Republic, it follows that the first rule of your political conduct ought to be to relate all your efforts to maintaining equality and developing virtue; because the first care of the legislator ought to be to fortify the principle of the government. Thus everything that tends to excite love of country, to purify morals, to elevate souls, to direct the passions of the human heart toward the public interest, ought to be adopted or established by you. Everything which tends to concentrate them in the abjection of selfishness, to awaken enjoyment for petty things and scorn for great ones, ought to be rejected or curbed by you. Within the scheme of the French revolution, that which is immoral is impolitic, that which is corrupting is counter-revolutionary. Weakness, vice, and prejudices are the road to royalty. Dragged too often, perhaps, by the weight of our former customs, as much as by the imperceptible bent of human frailty, toward false ideas and faint-hearted sentiments, we have less cause to guard ourselves against too much energy than against too much weakness. The greatest peril, perhaps, that we have to avoid is not that of zealous fervor, but rather of weariness in doing good works and of timidity in displaying our own courage. Maintain, then, the sacred power of the republican government, instead of letting it decline. I do not need to say that I have no wish here to justify any excess. The most sacred principles can indeed be abused. It is up to the wisdom of the government to pay heed to circumstances, to seize the right moments, to choose the proper means; because the manner of preparing great things is an essential part of the talent for performing them, just as wisdom is itself an element of virtue.

We deduce from all this a great truth—that the characteristic of popular government is to be trustful towards the people and severe towards itself.

Here the development of our theory would reach its limit, if you had only to steer the ship of the Republic through calm waters. But the tempest ranges, and the state of the revolution in which you find yourselves imposes upon you another task.

This great purity of the French revolution’s fundamental elements, the very sublimity of its objective, is precisely what creates our strength and our weakness: our strength, because it gives us the victory of truth over deception and the rights of public interest over private interests; our weakness, because it rallies against us all men who are vicious, all those who in their hearts plan to despoil the people, and all those who have despoiled them and want impunity, and those who reject liberty as a personal calamity, and those who have embraced the revolution as a livelihood and the Republic as if it were an object of prey. Hence the defection of so many ambitious or greedy men who since the beginning have abandoned us along the way, because they had not begun the voyage in order to reach the same goal. One could say that the two contrary geniuses that have been depicted competing for control of the realm of nature, are fighting in this great epoch of human history to shape irrevocably the destiny of the world, and that France is the theater of this mighty struggle. Without, all the tyrants encircle you; within, all the friends of tyranny conspire—they will conspire until crime has been robbed of hope. We must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish with them. Now, in this situation, the first maxim of your policy ought to be to lead the people by reason and the people’s enemies by terror.

If the mainspring of popular government in peacetime is virtue, amid revolution it is at the same time [both] virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is impotent. Terror is nothing but prompt, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue. It is less a special principle than a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country’s most pressing needs.

It has been said that terror was the mainspring of despotic government. Does your government, then, resemble a despotism? Yes, as the sword which glitters in the hands of liberty’s heroes resembles the one with which tyranny’s lackeys are armed. Let the despot govern his brutalized subjects by terror; he is right to do this, as a despot. Subdue liberty’s enemies by terror, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny.

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

  1. According to Robespierre, what is the central goal of the Revolution?

    Question

    G/JOj1pn609TVDuu8vEp9UJxgtRnwAiO3U90lGlS6jBoHvXggtt7kmPGp0pxoEBSh3WlNN0gHOWfZQsgoWM8Iq1JtUxtXgbPtVEjUpKbUbtBS8tF0o9dzi02S1aRSByEPyQ9OW6fhb7yu4tUMrsbCg==
    According to Robespierre, what is the central goal of the Revolution?
  2. Describe Robespierre’s notion of virtue. How is it related to his vision for the Revolution’s future?

    Question

    /LVWj7ep5VpaPhEu9MgqPwkvcdlnwzZVOtUt2EacTluzm/uftUTv/TOcJN25i8dOOVPsUwLgZAf1ApAmy7hhz4uRSn5i0V1WfDFne46my82hhvVQw+IyrVutJGCuNgyoJSn8mpfIPugVzEufYDloGfV5emYhrWP+/hSxBm4083ctxPT+4f/EaQ9Ve7vpMZf+1Yakcg==
    Describe Robespierre’s notion of virtue. How is it related to his vision for the Revolution’s future?
  3. In his view, what methods can governments use to defend virtue, and why?

    Question

    MimEc93Rln0Gz/e1Jf1cpYdh0iUT3LgDnvaZEuchGoT5W4UPSfK4IFJuSprb1qH1ULVEFwP33YAy5RdxHQkkjJxe20GtDCbGeSZIkYeLtkNN02ODTgsIGG8lZCdjoWaMjZX9smGY1NxnngiCHhJ2520RZew=
    In his view, what methods can governments use to defend virtue, and why?
  4. Historians have long debated whether the radical Revolution marked the beginning of true democracy or justified totalitarianism. Based on Robespierre’s speech, what evidence do you find to support these two contradictory ideas?

    Question

    ezzAC3gEhAkp7P7F9tIrOg2abjdHIHjGeLUEk4Wsew9DZcQK41SYXOlGndwjC9Vz8vN3J133CWqE5xpMxI1qhEKAcnixXOO11sa4TOdPhjaW8+4qydYSbMtEFTloLat1CvHXxpYqXGjQB/byK5HIUT9vhq5jtyyzJEb6puuxyaSWoUu/R/j7S4x3OrzoH9XSMQsYpsgthS5nmjAVcKbQjU6438UHe1Camy66fD4ySNYADrx3R6dMEWgm0fFHyW9ieQed7u0aYLlHSv4shSWaW/xNwCB+orO4/frDDKpfI7EnhW+Wi2mN3eVLlyvMCkKBspZfZGVlPgOxZw5+BhX+ZoVfdz0gva5C5Vu5lC6bsVU=
    Historians have long debated whether the radical Revolution marked the beginning of true democracy or justified totalitarianism. Based on Robespierre’s speech, what evidence do you find to support these two contradictory ideas?