The Origins of Terrorism
“Virtue without terror is impotent” is one of Robespierre’s famous quotes in which gives us great incite to his thought processes during the time he was in control (Lecture). Though it sounds chilling, this actually offers some proof that Robespierre was not out for self-serving power, but to preserve and control the revolution. Without terror, virtue lies limp and unsubstantial to the cause, but when you have terror, virtue becomes erect and substantial. His use of “impotent virtue” in the quote actually gives a reason for him using terror. To him it made sense that the only way to instill virtue to the people was through terrorism. He also considered virtue the primary driving force of a government such as democracy, and the primary force of a government during a revolution is virtue as well as terror (Perry 118).
Robespierre loved his with a strength that can almost be considered fanaticism. He believed in the revolution and his own views. He was known as “The Incorruptible” (Noble 658) because his moral compass was apparently always true and unfaltering. This also made him have the tendency to be unmerciful. His unbending views on what is to be done with enemies is made apparent in his statement, “It is necessary to annihilate both the internal and external enemies of the republic or perish with its fall” (Perry 118). His tyrannical approach to the extermination of enemies was perhaps overzealous, but it is what he believed would do the best good for the republic. His goals for France are probably the greatest proof that he loved France:
We wish that France, once illustrious among enslaved nations, may, while eclipsing the glory of all the free peoples that ever existed, become a model to nations, a terror to oppressors, a consolation to the oppressed, an ornament of the universe; and that, by sealing our work with our blood, we may witness at least the dawn of universal happiness-this is our ambition, this is our aim (Perry 117).
Not only are his goals noble, but also he fully believed that they could be obtained through the methods of terrorism he implemented.
While Robespierre might have misjudged the best route to obtain his goals for France, he was not out to take power in a self-serving respect. There was no precedent for the type of revolution that happened in France, and the theory of Robespierre was the only one of the time. He believed that someone had to step up and take control; otherwise the revolution would fold up on itself and stall. Thus he internalized some of the war machine that was the revolution to face his own people. His unbending enforcement of this theory was his flaw. This made people use The Terror for gain and retribution against their own countrymen. Like the Red Scare in America, people became paranoid and the enemy was suddenly all around them. Simple statements could be considered counterrevolutionary, which essentially was a death sentence. However, enlightenment thinking and policy continued.
A separation of church and state was employed. Marriage was made a civil contract. Divorce was made easier for women, which was a step in the right direction for women’s rights. Public non-secular education was envisioned and people were guided toward nationalism, via loyalty towards patrie and a kind of draft (Lecture). While freedom of speech was stomped on, the French citizen was experiencing several new (and quite extraordinary for the time) freedoms. They were encouraged with a sense of belonging and duty towards their “fatherland”. The majority ruled, and the minority was more or less eliminated by The Terror.
Without Robespierre I don’t think the revolution would have continued for as long as it did, I think it would have imploded because of counterrevolutions. Robespierre did not suffer the minority, but shut down the neigh-sayers for what he considered the “the greater good. There are corollaries to The Terror throughout American history, though less bloody. The most current would be The War on Terrorism. The difference of misjudgment and self-serving intention is what makes Robespierre less of a tyrant, and more of an extreme revolutionary nationalist.
