Was Robespierre solely responsible for the Terror ?

...

Even Saint-Just, Robespierre’s most staunch friend on the Committee, began to doubt his ardent commitment to the Terror, claiming in a private note in 1794 that “the Revolution is frozen”. The terror had started to create an atmosphere of ‘cynicism and fear’ even amongst the Revolution’s most devout supporters, the Jacobins (Linton, 2006). The Jacobins had had enough, with Cambon stating on the 26th of July 1794 in the Convention, "It is time to tell the whole truth. One man alone is paralyzing the will of the Convention. And that man is Robespierre". Cambon was backed by many other members and Robespierre was thus arrested the next day. He was then guillotined on the 28th, the last victim of the Reign of Terror (HistoryWiz, n.d.).

It must be noted, however, that the sans-culottes exerted a great deal of pressure on the Convention to take action and thus this pressure was partly responsible for the Terror. For instance, in September 1793 they invaded the Convention for a second time in order to put pressure on the deputies ‘to ensure their food supplies and to deal with counter-revolutionaries’. Here they urged the Convention to “make Terror the order of the day” (Linton, 2006). This episode led directly to the passing of the Law of Suspects and then to the Decree on Emergency Government. Thus as Linton points out, it could be said that Robespierre, once a lawyer, clung to Terror as a form of law with the intention of preventing the sans-culottes from ‘taking the law into their own hands through mob violence’ (Linton, 2006). This idea is echoed through the words of Danton when he declared, “let us be terrible in order to stop the people from being so”.

Moreover, it would be incorrect to assume that Robespierre was the only terrorist in the government. Rather, other members of the Committee were also responsible for the Terror. For instance, Georges Couthon was a formidable character who appears to have escaped a great deal of blame. On the 10th of June 1794, with Robespierre’s help, he drafted the Law of 22 Prairial, which meant the accused would have neither aid of counsel nor witnesses for their defense, claiming that it would greatly shorten proceedings. He proposed the law without consulting the rest of the Committee of Public Safety, and when the Convention raised doubts, he justified the law by stating, “the guilty have no right for a counsel and the innocents do not need any” (Bredin, 2008). This law had horrifying consequences. Between its passing and the end of July 1794, 1,515 executions took place at the Place de la Revolution (Doyle, 2002: 275).

Another man who must be acknowledged for his participation in the Reign of Terror is Saint-Just. For instance, when he was sent to Alsace by the Convention to revitalise the Army he established a military tribunal to punish ‘negligence, insubordination, pillage and theft’, spreading Terror to the republican forces (Toubiana, n.d.). Moreover, when men such as Danton and Georges, otherwise known as ‘The Indulgents’, began to argue that there was no need to continue with the reign of Terror, an outraged Saint-Just gave a speech at the Convention in February 1794 advocating the need to maintain the policy and to suppress these men. He skilfully convinced the Convention to provide the Committee with even more power, allowing he and Robespierre to arrest the Hébertistes, whom were deemed too extremist, on the 13th and 14th of March 1794. Saint-Just then gave a fatal prosecution against Hebert, Jacques and the Enraged, who were sent to the scaffold 10 days later (Toubiana, n.d.). In addition, Hardman highlights how the police bureau was the ‘brainchild’ of Saint-Just (Hardman, 1999: 150).

Furthermore, one must acknowledge that Robespierre became victim of an almost conspiracy against him by some of his colleagues on the Committee of Public Safety. When these men realised that they soon might also be blamed for their role in the Terror, they began to paint Robespierre as a tyrant. As pointed out by Dart, men such as d’Herbois, Varennes, Tallien and Barère had been as devoutly committed to the revolutionary government as any during the Reign of Terror, but because they ‘had not shared Robespierre’s obsession to explain, justify and continually moralise the Terror,’ it was relatively easy for them to put all the blame on him (Dart, 1998: 72). In the words of Robert Southey, “A few monsters even worse than himself were among the foremost in sending him to the scaffold” (Dart, 1998: 72). Robespierre himself was mindful of this ‘conspiracy’ and he protested to the National Convention that he was being transformed into a kind of scapegoat for the Terror, but to no avail.

In his last few weeks, Robespierre was unable to attend the meetings of the Committee or the Convention. In his absence, however, it is worth noting that it was ‘business as usual for the Terror’ as his personnel were able to take major policy decisions (Linton, 2006). For instance, Herman, Head of the Tribunal, greatly increased the numbers sent to the guillotine whilst Payan, the National Agent of the Commune, ‘organized an insurrection against the National Convention’ (Hardman, 1999: 103).

Moreover, it would be incorrect to state that Robespierre was solely responsible for the Terror given that there were aspects of it with which he disagreed. For instance, he opposed dechristianization which was carried out by the sans-culottes. This involved ‘forcibly closing churches and preventing any kind of religious activity’ (Linton, 2006). Also, he denounced the extreme violence employed by some of the Jacobin deputies who were sent out on mission from the Convention to oversee the application of policy in the provinces, most notably Fouché, whom was loathed by Robespierre (Linton, 2006). Scurr points out that with regards to the executions that took place in Lyon under Fouché’s command, ‘Robespierre told him there were no excuses for the crimes he was guilty of’ (Scurr, 2006: 333).

To conclude, Robespierre is without doubt largely responsible for the Terror, given that he was the most powerful man in France during this period and given that he went to such an excess that many of his colleagues grew to question him. He, however, cannot be solely held responsible given the abundance of evidence that highlights the responsibility of other members of the Committee, such as Saint-Just and Couthon. Thus I agree to a certain extent with the proposed statement that Robespierre was solely responsible for the Terror.

Word Count: 2,163

Bibliography-

- Bredin, J. (2008), Mission d’information sur les questions mémorielles, [Online], Available:

...