Terror In the Defense of Liberty? The Radicalizing French Revolution
1
Terror In the Defense of Liberty? The Radicalization of the French Revolution
Read the following text.
Study Questions
1. What kind of society did the sans-culottes and "Gracchus" Babeuf want to
create in revolutionary France? Why did Babeuf see the equality of the Declaration of the
Rights of Man and Citizen as insufficient? What sort of equality did he advocate for his
Republic of Equals? Would you have supported Babeuf’s call for a more radical, more
thorough going equality?
2. What kind of society did Robespierre wish to create in revolutionary France?
How did his vision compare with the one implied in the Declaration of the Rights of Man
and Citizen? What is significant about the differences?
3. To what extent did Robespierre adopt a Rousseauian view of democracy and
political life? Robespierre claimed that democracy was sustained by "virtue." What does
he mean by virtue? To what extent was he referring to the civic virtue of classical
republicanism? Do you agree with Robespierre’s assessment of virtue? Why or why not?
4. Putting to the side for the moment the means Robespierre used to defend and
advance his political ideas, would you have supported his conception of democracy? Why
or why not?
5. In order to finish the "war of liberty against tyranny," Robespierre said that one
must "lead the people by reason, and the people's enemies by terror." How did he define
"terror" and justify its usage? In your view, does the use of terror betray or defend the
ideals of the revolution? Is it possible to be reasonable and democratic with some fellow
citizens, yet employ terror with other citizens?
6. In the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution, Robespierre was
remembered as an evil and radical zealot. From today's perspective, how radical were his
ideas and methods? Was he evil? Or was he a man before his time?
7. Contrary to Robespierre's assessment, some historians have concluded that the
ideals of liberalism/democracy and nationalism are actually in opposition to each other.
Using Robespierre’s speech and life as evidence, how might you explain the relationship
between democracy and nationalism?
As the French Revolution moved to the left, its supporters attempted to articulate
standards of conduct that exemplified republican dedication. The next three documents
illustrate the connections made between personal conduct, economic values, and political
"morality." In the first document the sans-culottes of Paris define themselves. The term
sans-culottes referred to the trousers worn by ordinary workers and shopkeepers, in contrast
to the knee breeches favored by aristocrats. As the document indicates, the Parisians who
considered themselves sans-culottes believed in democracy, in virtuous conduct, and in direct
action to support a revolution that took power from the rich and privileged. In the second
document, "Gracchus" Babeuf (1760-1797) insists that the revolution ought to end economic
as well as political inequality. The editor of the newspaper The Tribune of the People,
Babeuf represents a socialist strand in the French Revolution. In 1796 he led a group
determined to overthrow the Directory and replace it with leaders committed to economic
reform. He was arrested and executed in 1797. In the third document, Maximilien
Robespierre (1758- 1794) urges the Convention to remove any opponents of the revolution
from its midst. He delivered this speech as a representative of the Committee of Public Safety,
the executive body of twelve men that effectively ruled France in this period. The speech
offers justification for what became known as the "reign of terror" during 1793-1794.
Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794), known to his contemporaries as "the
Incorruptible," remains one of the most controversial figures of the French Revolution. To
Terror In the Defense of Liberty? The Radicalizing French Revolution
2
his enemies, he was viewed as the Devil incarnate; to the Parisian masses of 1793, he was
seen as the unwavering champion of freedom and equality. Under his leadership, the French
Revolution entered its so-called radical phase (1792-1794), when as many as 40,000 people
were guillotined in order to complete what he viewed as "the war of liberty against tyranny."
Robespierre was born to a poor family in the French town of Arras in 1758. With the
aid of a scholarship, he studied law in Paris and became enamored with the ideas of
Rousseau, especially his concept of the ultimate and infallible "general will" of the people.
After practicing law for several years, Robespierre was elected to the Estates General in
1789, where he joined the more radical, pro-democratic Jacobin party. He was an energetic
and uncompromising advocate of democratic reforms, and he won the admiration and
support of the Parisian working classes as he rose to leadership within the Jacobins. In 1793,
he was elected to the twelve-member Committee of Public Safety, where he continued to
consolidate his power. Robespierre believed that he understood the needs and aspirations of
the people, as well as the cunning treacheries of their enemies, and he was willing to adopt
extreme measures in order to protect and preserve his vision of the revolution. In early 1794,
he arrested and executed some of his former political allies, but by midyear, his own position
was growing precarious within a divided Committee of Public Safety. In July, his enemies
issued an arrest warrant and Robespierre was tried and guillotined the following day.
Six months prior to his death, when he was at the height of his power, Robespierre
gave a speech on "The Moral and Political Principles of Domestic Policy" (February 1794).
By this time, the revolutionary armies of France had succeeded in repelling the foreign
invaders, but Robespierre still worried about domestic counterrevolutionaries and spies at
home. His speech offers a fascinating insight into Robespierre's vision of the revolution, as
well as his justification for the use of terror. It also raises some interesting questions about
the meaning of the French Revolution, the use of extremism in defense of liberty, and the
relationship between democracy, nationalism, and "virtue.”
What Is a Sans-Culotte?
The sans-culotte... is someone who goes everywhere on foot... and who lives quite
simply with his wife and children, if he has any, on the fourth or fifth floor... If you wish to
meet the cream of the sansculotterie, then visit the garrets of the workers (ouvriers). The
sansculotte is useful because he knows how to plough a field, how to forge, to saw, to file, to
cover a roof and how to make shoes. . . . And since he works, it is certain that you will not
find him at the café de Chartres, nor in the dens where people gamble and plot, nor at the
theater de Ia Nation where they are performing l'Ami des lois... In the evening, he goes to his
Section, not powdered and perfumed not elegantly dressed in the hope of catching the eye of
the citizens in the galleries, but to give his unreserved support to sound resolutions... Besides
this, the sans-culotte always has his sword with the edge sharpened to give a salutary lesson
to all trouble-makers. Sometimes he carries his pike with him, and at the first beat of the
drum, he will be seen leaving for the Vendée, for the armée des Alpes or the armée du Nord.
From "Gracchus" Babeuf, Manifesto of the Equals
People of France!
For fifteen centuries you have lived slaves, and therefore unhappy. It is now scarcely
six years since you have begun to revive in the hope of independence, happiness and
equality...
Equality! First need of nature, first demand of man, and chief bond of all legitimate
society! French people! you have not been more favored than the other nations that vegetate
on this wretched globe! Always and everywhere poor humanity, in the hands of more or less
adroit cannibals is the tool of every ambition, the pasture of every tyranny. Always and
Terror In the Defense of Liberty? The Radicalizing French Revolution
3
everywhere men were lulled by fine phrases; never and nowhere did they receive the
fulfilment with the promise. From time immemorial we have been hypocritically told: Men
are equal: and from time immemorial the insolent weight of the most degrading and most
monstrous inequality has weighed down the human race. Since civilized society began, this
finest possession of humanity has been unanimously recognized, yet not once realized;
equality was only a fair and sterile fiction of the law. Today when it is more loudly claimed,
we are answered: Silence, wretches! real equality is but a chimera: be content with
constitutional equality: you are all equal before the law. Canaille, what more do you want? –
What more do we want? Legislators, governors, rich proprietors, listen in your turn.
We are all equal, are we not? This principle is uncontested: for without being mad one
cannot say it is night when it is day.
Well, henceforward we are going to live and die equal as we were born; we desire real
equality or death: that is what we want.
And we shall have this real equality at all costs. Woe to those who stand between it
and us! Woe to those who resist so strong a desire!
The French Revolution is but the precursor of another revolution, far greater, far more
solemn, which will be the last.
What do we want more than equality in law?
We want this equality not merely written down in the Declaration of the Rights of
Man and the Citizen: we want it in our midst, beneath the roofs of our houses. We will
consent to everything for it; we will make a clean sweep to hold to it alone. Perish, if need be,
all the arts as long as we have real equality!...
We aim at ... the COMMON good or the COMMUNITY OF GOODS! No more
private property in land: The earth is nobody's. We claim, we will the common use of the
fruits of the earth: its fruits are everybody's.
Ancient habits, archaic prejudices again try to prevent the establishment of the
Republic of Equals. The organizing of real equality, the only state which answers all
requirements without making victims or costing sacrifices, perhaps will not at first please
everyone. The egoist and ambitious man will scream with rage. Those who possess unjustly
will cry out, injustice! Their exclusive delights, their solitary pleasures, their personal ease
will leave bitter longings in the hearts of some individuals who have grown effete by their
neighbor's toil. Lovers of absolute power, and worthless tools of arbitrary authority, will find
it hard to bring their proud chiefs to the level of equality. Their short-sight cannot penetrate
into the near future of the common good; but what is the power of a few thousand
malcontents against the mass of men, entirely happy and wondering that they sought so long
for what was beneath their hand.
On the morrow of this true revolution they will say: What, was the common good so
easy? We had but to will it. Ah, why did we not will it sooner? Was it necessary to repeat it
to us so often? Yes, without doubt, but one man on earth more rich and powerful than his
fellows, his equals, shatters the equilibrium; and crime and unhappiness arise on earth...
People of France, Open your eyes and hearts to the fulness of joy. Recognize and
proclaim with us THE REPUBLIC OF EQUALS.
From Maximilien Robespierre, The Moral and Political Principles of Domestic Policy
(1794)
Some time ago we set forth the principles of our foreign policy; today we come to
expound the principles of our internal policy.
After having proceeded haphazardly for a long time, swept along by the movement of
opposing factions, the representatives of the French people have finally demonstrated a
character and a government... But, up to the very moment when I am speaking, it must be
Terror In the Defense of Liberty? The Radicalizing French Revolution
4
agreed that we have been guided, amid such stormy circumstances, by the love of good and
by the awareness of our country's needs rather than by an exact theory and by precise rules of
conduct, which we did not have even leisure enough to lay out.
It is time to designate clearly the purposes of the revolution and the point which we
wish to attain: It is time we should examine ourselves the obstacles which yet are between us
and our wishes, and the means most proper to realize them: A consideration simple and
important which appears not yet to have been contemplated. Indeed, how could a base and
corrupt government have dared to view themselves in the mirror of political rectitude? A
king, a proud senate, a Caesar1, a Cromwell2; of these the first care was to cover their dark
designs under the cloak of religion, to covenant with every vice, caress every party, destroy
men of probity, oppress and deceive the people in order to attain the end of their perfidious
ambition. If we had not had a task of the first magnitude to accomplish; if all our concern had
been to raise a party or create a new aristocracy, we might have believed, as certain writers
more ignorant than wicked asserted, that the plan of the French revolution was to be found
written in the works of Tacitus3 and of Machiavelli; we might have sought the duties of the
representatives of the people in the history of Augustus4, of Tiberius5, or of Vespasian6, or
even in that of certain French legislators; for tyrants are substantially alike and only differ by
trifling shades of perfidy and cruelty.
For our part we now come to make the whole world partake in your political secrets,
in order that all friends of their country may rally at the voice of reason and public interest,
and that the French nation and her representatives be respected in all countries which may
attain a knowledge of their true principles; and that intriguers who always seek to supplant
other intriguers may be judged by public opinion upon settled and plain principles.
Every precaution must early be used to place the interests of freedom in the hands of
truth, which is eternal, rather than in those of men who change; so that if the government
forgets the interests of the people or falls into the hands of men corrupted, according to the
natural course of things, the light of acknowledged principles should unmask their treasons,
and that every new faction may read its death in the very thought of a crime.
Happy the people that attains this end; for, whatever new machinations are plotted
against their liberty, what resources does not public reason present when guaranteeing
freedom!
What is the end of our revolution? 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
1
Julius Caesae was the Roman general who played a pivotal role in transforming the Roman Republic into the
Roman Empire. After conquering much of Western Europe, he consolidated his power in Rome, undermining
the republican government. He was assassinated by a group of Roman senators, led by Brutus, who sought to
restore the republic.
2
Oliver Cromwell was the English political and military leader who led the Puritan Parliamentary forces in the
revolution against King Charles I, and in the brief establishment of the republican commonwealth.
3
Tacitus was a first and second century C.E. Roman senator and historian. His two major surviving works, the
Annals and the Histories, were an account of early Roman empire.
4
The first Roman emperor, he joined forces with Marc Antony and Marcus Aurelius to form a triumvirate to
rule Rome after the assassination of his uncle, Julius Caesar. He eventually seized power from the other two,
and consolidated the power of the emperor. His rule began the period of Pax Romana, a centuries long period of
relative peace and prosperity.
5
The second Roman emperor after Augustus, and one of the Rome’s greatest generals.
6
A first century C.E. Roman emperor.
Terror In the Defense of Liberty? The Radicalizing French Revolution
5
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... which is to say, all the virtues and all the miracles of the republic in place of all the
vices of the monarchy...
What kind of government can realize these wonders? Only a democratic or republican
government... 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...
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...
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...
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...
Since the soul of the Republic is virtue... it follows that the first rule of your political
conduct ought to be to relate all your efforts to maintaining equality and developing virtue...
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 counterrevolutionary...
This great purity of the French Revolution's fundamental elements... 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... We must smother the internal and external enemies of the Republic or perish, [and]
in these circumstances, the first maxim of our 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 has been said that terror was the mainspring of despotic
government. Does our government, then, resemble a despotism? Yes! Subdue liberty's
Terror In the Defense of Liberty? The Radicalizing French Revolution
6
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.
Some people would like to govern revolutions by the quibbles of the law courts and
treat conspiracies against the Republic like legal proceedings against private persons.
Tyranny kills; liberty argues. And the code made by the conspirators themselves is the law by
which they are judged.