Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The Reign of Terror
During the Reign of Terror, Robespierre suspended the newly granted rights of the citizens to protect the new republic in France from threats. These threats included foreign armies trying to invade France to crush the revolution, as well as counterrevolutionary threats from within France. Do you think the methods Robespierre used during the Terror helped or hurt the revolution? In a time of great distress, do you think a government should have the right to suspend the rights of citizens to protect the well-being of the country, like Robespierre did?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well what I think is the right thing to do is to not kill so many people for hardly a legitimate reason. But instead of that make it possible for the people to try and shift to the side of the revolution but not using violence unnecessarily. But with the time being so chaotic I suppose you could threaten them with violence if they were really not in line.
ReplyDeleteI think that what Robespierre did by suspending people's right temporally was a good and a bad move. Because by suspending there rights you may cause an uproar and then you might get guillotined, but if you don't do it then everything would get even more out of hand.
I think that the restriction hurt the revolution. I think that taking away rights is not okay, not even in times of stress, because someone might take advantage of it to their own advantage, if you know what I mean.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt seemed like a crazy time and there really was no need for the executions just because people spoke their mind. it all backfired on robespierre so obviously it HWASN'T a good move. it just seems too insane to punish so many citizens somtimes for no reason at all. i think that everyones rights should have been suspended too because everything was too out of control and so order needed to be restored into france. the end
ReplyDeletewhat ever robespirre did, he prevented the revolution from dying and france from being invaded by foreign countries. he did what seemed sensible to him. not only did he had to deal with the wars on the borders but also on the hassle inside france. so, he had alot of burden on his back. if anyone didnt think it was a good idea, i would ask them to think what would they have done in order to win the wars and also prevent any acts of anti revolution in france. he killed everyone suspicious in order to do that. i dont think he had a choice. so, in a way he did save the revolution but in the end he became on of its victims. so his idea was kind of okay.
ReplyDeleteI think that what Robespierre did was extreme, but then again it DID help the revolution. I think that the Rein of Terror, because of the chaos of the time brought "chaotic order". Basically, the guillotine brought much chaos and fear, but established some order in France. Because of this, and also because of the killing of masses of people, I think that the Rein of Terror could have been carried out in a less violent way like threatening banishment, expulsion from the Church, expulsion form their rights, imprisonment, etc. Also, a better, more just system could have been established for the accusations of tyranny against the revolution.
ReplyDeleteI think he didn't have the right to take away all there right but some he could take away but it boils down to the fact that he got what needed to be done, done. If anything like this were to happen again I think that instead of just taking away there right they should temporarily have new rights.
ReplyDeleteThe actions that Robespierre took during the Terror weren't good nor bad. The idea of eliminating all against the revolution was a good idea because the only people alive would be the ones wanting a change. This would make changing and agreeing on it, easier and without struggle in law or war from counterrevolutionaries. Although I'm sure that many people were mistaken of being against the revolution and were executed. This caused great fear within the people and even led to Robespierre's arrest and execution.
ReplyDeleteIn a time of distress, the government shouldn't have the right to suspend the peoples rights. It makes no sense. Taking the rights away from people to speech or religion or property, trial, or basically anything. How would they interfere with the distress with the government. I question that...
I think that it would be okay for a leader to suspend rights if they had a good reason. For example if the whole country was in a civil war.
ReplyDeleteBut the killing of the counterrevolutionaries was was just killing people to kill people with no good reason behind it and the could have just put them in prison until the revolution was over. I think what Robespierre helped the revolution. There were most likely many unneeded deaths that took place during the terror which is why what he did could have hurt the revolution. But luckily for him it didn't.
I don't think he should be allowed to suspend people's rights, even in a time of great distress. Also, he didn't need to kill so many people just because they spoke their thoughts. I think that suspending people's rights and killing so many people may have hurt rather than helped the revolution.
ReplyDeleteI think it was excused that rights were suspended. If rights were in effect, nothing could be done without a vote. I believe that the people of France should have been able to agree or disagree to have their rights taken away. In this situation, most of the people did not want to loose their rights, and so they shouldn't have been forced to comply.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre did not need to suspend the people's rights during the Reign of Terror. I don't think any government should be allowed to do so. People need freedom and deserve natural rights, and taking those away from someone is wrong. It may also cause them to be mad at you, which could ead to unnecessary violence, which France is alredy going through. Robepierre hurt the revolution by suspending the people's rights and killing so many people for no good reason. He took advantage of his power by killing so many innocent people during his rule. It is because of this and other poor decisions he made that eventually caused him to be killed.
ReplyDeleteYes i that Robespiere had effect on The Reign of Terror. Yes they should of suspended the citezens of the town to protect them.
ReplyDelete-Mark Arigo
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe Reign of Terror was a bad way to gain a new revolution because you shouldn't use force to push into someone liking your idea. (for example: Robespierre's idea was to get a new revolution simply by force of killing people that did not support a new revolution.)
ReplyDeleteDuring the great distress, the government shouldn't have taken away rights of citizens because the government can't take away someone's beliefs or religion, etc. You cant force someone saying something they don't believe or support.
I do not agree with Robespierre's decisions during the Reign of Terror. He should not have suspended the rights because he was one of the people that wanted those changes in the first place. Also, the whole point of the Revolution was to gain more rights and by taking those away, you are taking away a big part of the revolution. Another one of his decisions that i don't agree with was how he used fear to control the country. By threatening your people, you aren't going to gain their trust or respect which is what they needed to create a better France.
ReplyDeleteRobespierre's methods worked almost perfectly for his goal, but I don't agree with is ideas about "justice" and terror being necessary. The rights of people should never be suspended, because there's no greater good for a country that's more important than it's people. Also, killing anyone against you makes you seem like a hero to those that are with you, but it just makes your enemies hate you more. They're just scared into silence. If Robespierre was so good at gaining support, he should have just used his influence and ideas to try to sway the people to his side, or have Danton help him with that. Terror isn't a good way to rule.
ReplyDeleteI think that he should'nt have killed so many people but instead try to make the counterrevolutionist want to change their minds and make a deal with them so they are happy and the church doesn't have power and it won't effect the revolution.It might have also been in his(Robespierre)best interest not to kill people who get caught talking about the revolution without enthusiasm because he needed as many people as he can have to help him fight off the other countries that were threatening France because those people he killed may not have been fans of what he was doing about the revolution but they probably cared about France just as much as everyone else.
ReplyDeleteThe reign of terror didn't help the revolution at all it made France weak and almost helpless.
As for suspending the peoples rights I don't think it was really needed the peoples rights didn't have anything to do with the threats. It just created more of France to hate him. Digging a greater hole for Robespierre.
I think that during the Reign of Terror, Robespierre's idea to suspended the newly granted rights of the citizens to protect the new republic in France from threats was a good idea, but it was a very bad way to start off the new republic. The threats included foreign armies trying to invade France to crush the new revolution. I think that because Robespierre suspended the rights he saved France from the indvaders, but in doing so he got power hungry and as soon as he fought off the treats he caused France reason to be even more scared with his "lists". In a time of great distress I think that the government should have the right to suspend the rights of the people for a short amount of time to defend there country. Its just to bad that power got to Robespierre's head!
ReplyDelete