Robespierre’s Justification for State Terror

Robespierres Justification for evoke Terror Maximilien Robespierre states, What is the goal toward which we be heading? The peaceful enjoyment of indecency and equality. (Bienvenu, p. 1, para. 1) The laws that acquit been passed by the royalty that are meant to bring long last righteousness, are laws that are recognized these laws are non written any(prenominal) where but in the essence of all individuals. Robespierre was elected as the exemplar of the National Convention and joined a political club called the substructure Jacobin party.Being apart of the Convention and the Jacobins, Robespierre took over the administrative power of the Republic. Because the Jacobins believed that France was in postulate of change and restructuring, and Robespierre was now the head of the Convention, he peck develop such change. By doing so he argues that in the land, the use of ethics moldiness be re sicd with the use of pride, proposition for traditions, self-regard for arrogance, magn ificence for narcissism, prestige for m oney, and nefariousness of the sovereign for lawfulnesss and the phenomenon.He believed in democracy and the Republic of virtue. He felt that in order to set the basis of democracy within the people, the merge of twain(prenominal) ending the war of independence and oppression must take place in order to put an end to the revolt. The essences of the Republic are virtue and equality. He explains how it is the development of virtue and the maintenance of equality that creates the Republic. Therefore, it is embraced or founded by an individual.He believed that the quality of organism an admired government would be an advantage in gaining the trust of the citizens in order to create a strict and compressed government, be trustful towards the people and severe towards itself. (Bienvenu, p. 2, para. 2) Robespierre states the strengths and weaknesses of this theory the strength being the triumph of truth rather than dishonesty, and the rights of the communitys interests than the private. The purpose of both virtue and terror was that without terror it can be deadly, and if it is deadly, virtue is strong.If one did not hated crime, they were presumed to detest virtue. Social protection is for the passive citizens, and the ones who are violent are the ones who are the ones who to be apart of England and Austria. Towards the end, Robespierre mentions an idea of Aristocracy, in which he creates secret illicit laws instead of vigorously supporting his let country. He ends by saying that a cruel government can kill, being free is not for everyone, and if anyone disagreed with his ideas, they would be considered an enemy or traitor.Robespierre structures his pipeline by introducing the points he wants to make step by step. He starts withdraw by informing the audience of what he thinks the land should contain, and how it should run. He gives examples of ideas, and substitutes them with what he thinks it should be instead. For i nstance, he would say, skillful people in place of good society, meaning he would replace a good society, and choose to have good citizens instead. (Bienvenu, p. 1, para. 2) Robespierre defines democracy in his own way, then goes on to learn how the soul of the Republic is virtue and equality (Bienvenu, p. , para. 6) is in his eyes. He mentions accessible protection, which is only for citizens who are passive. As this speech ends, Robespierre uses questions to bring the audience to a realization of the points he was trying to bring out throughout the speech. He uses Aristocracy to back up his ideas. Towards the end, he leaves the audience with a get through they must figure out in order to understand what he meant. Maximilien Robespierre violates all 17 articles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789.He did not give the citizens to go into in the making of the law or the government. They were not given the liberty to speak, write or print, and not e veryone had equal rights. The ones that followed his ideas received special treatment, whereas, the ones who disagreed, were considered conspirators. They were sometimes imprisoned and other times killed. He did the opposite of of Article 5, and acts in a way that it hurt society. He killed 40,000 people and locked up 3,000. He did not allow society to use of public agents when required.Laws were created notwithstanding though the people, and society did not agree. This is why, in 1794, Robespierre was sentence to death with the use of the guillotine, something he like to use for his executions. During the French Revolution, no one has caused as more dilemma as Maximilien Robespierre did. He believed in equality and virtue, however, he contradicted himself and was not aware that he was, in fact, biased. If he thought, heard or was even told that someone descended, they would have fell into the category of an enemy or traitor.He is represents the afterward Adolf Hitler, who was a dictator, in several different ways. Two being that he tried to promote his beliefs to the people of his land, by infusing fear into the people of the land, and killing or injuring who ever would disagree with him. However, he did not discriminate as viciously as Hitler did. If Robespierre was to do what he did in the present society, he may have been sentenced to life in prison or crownwork punishment for attempting to corrupt the minds of others, and for killing as many people as he did.