Reign of Terror DBQ

Isaac Flannery
AP European History

The Reign of Terror was a period of execution and chaos during the French Revolution.
Before the French Revolution there was a period of change and education known as the
Enlightenment. During the Enlightenment, new ideas about politics, society, and religion were
spreading, leading to many changes in life throughout Europe. The changes were generally
made for the benefit of the people rather than just focusing on the rulers in charge which was
common for the time. However, in France these new changes weren’t enough for the people,
so they threw a Revolution in an attempt to improve their lives and their country. It started
with the King, Louis XVI, calling the Estates General with the intent to start taxing the 1 st and 2nd
estates of France, which did not happen and instead the 3rd Estate was locked out. After they
were locked out, members of the 3rd estate locked themselves into a Tennis Court nearby and
made the Tennis Court Oath, saying they would not leave until they could make a new
Constitution that the King would sign. There were many other events like this during the
Revolution that led to the Reign of Terror such as the Women’s March on Versailles, Storming
the Bastille, and The Great Fear. Following the French Revolution, Napoleon Bonaparte began
his rule in France and his conquest of Europe, and the Industrial Revolution was in full force in
England. The Industrial revolution had huge advancements in technology like the steam engine,
spinning jenny, and cotton gin. The Industrial revolution also led to urbanization and factory
work for both women and children under horrible working conditions. Although the Reign of
Terror did eventually lead to changes the French people wanted as an instrument of the French
Revolution, it had far more drawbacks, shown in accounts from people who tried justifying
what was happening, how citizens reacted, and from people who wanted a less violent
alternative.

During the Reign of Terror there was too much happening to be neutral, the people had
to pick a side, and some people decided to try to justify the killings and choices made during the
Reign. One example of this is in document 7, Maximilien Robespierre is speaking to the
National Assembly saying that the actions taken were necessary because during a Revolution,
the government has to be tougher and has to protect the entire country from its own people
when a constitutional government usually only has to protect individuals from the State’s
abuses. In this address he is trying to make the executions of the French people seem like a
necessary measure in order to protect the state when they could have at least tried to stop the
fighting and be peaceful before starting the executions which would’ve been a much better
step towards getting what the Revolution was started for. At this time Robespierre was
beginning to be corrupted by the power he had taken after the king’s execution, at the
beginning of the revolution he was against the executions, but now he is trying to make those
same executions seem okay in the eyes of the National Assembly. The bias of this is to help
Robespierre keep his power, he was growing attached to being in charge of the Revolution and
he didn’t want the National Assembly to think he was making bad choices, so he convinced
them that they were the right choices. Another example can be found in document 5, General
Ronsin wrote a letter saying that with the help of grape shot from their ships, they can send a
message back to the very heart of the rebellion and stop the rebels for good. This is a general
talking about the mass murder of thousands of French people, who are rebelling over the
fighting that is taking thousands of other lives, but instead of trying his best to help these
people and the rest of the French people, he deems it necessary to slaughter them instead so
he can silence those who would rather prevent the bloodshed which is far more of a drawback
than a benefit to getting better lives for the French people. Those are not the actions of a
general, those are the actions of a conqueror, caring only about the men in his own army when
the people he is condemning to death are his own people too. The Reign of Terror was so
violent and radical that it made soldiers fight their own people because their leaders are telling
them it will end in peace, which did eventually happen but only after the deaths of thousands
of their own. The bias here is the Revolutionary Army are the good guys and the rebellion in
getting in the way of what the French people want because Ronsin is saying that the message
the deaths will send is for the whole state. The people who were justifying their choices and
actions cared more about keeping their authority than the French people and outcome of the
Revolution.

The people caught in the middle of all the chaos had their own thoughts on what was
happening as well. In document 10 it says that the citizens are complaining about the
government arresting people who agree with the Revolution but essentially have emotions.
People can’t help but have emotions, so the government arresting otherwise great citizens over
having them is a huge drawback to the Revolution. The government is trying to keep the people
in check by making sure they don’t get too ambitious because that’s what the people in charge
did and they don’t want anyone to threaten their power, which is what Napoleon ended up
doing after the Reign of Terror. The purpose of this document is to draw attention to the
mistreatment from their own government because if the people aren’t allowed to feel things
then why should they feel the need to listen to the government or fight if they’re just going to
be treated poorly for no reason anyways. Another account of higher-ups oppressing their
people is in document 13, it says that people are unhappy with revolutionary committees
because they don’t care about what happens to the people, they just care about themselves. In
a time of terror like this it is important to know that your superiors are backing you, but in this
case, they weren’t backing the people, which made people not trust them or be happy that
they’re there which was a drawback that weakened the Revolution. The committees would
even advocate sending people to pillage in order to enforce equality throughout the citizens
and would arrest those they thought were against reforms against privileged people. The
intended audience of this document was the government in hopes that they would change the
ways that the committees acted so the people would feel safer and feel that the government
was actually on their side instead of against them or merely an observer. The citizens were
affected by the Reign of Terror just as much as others which led to more instablility throughout
the country.

There were those who wanted change, but they did not want it to cost the lives of their
fellow citizens. An example of this is in document 6, Camille Desmoulins says that killing people
will just make more enemies for the state, that the people that have been imprisoned are not
dangerous, and that the best of the French people have already left. This shows there were
more drawbacks because it is saying that these killings are doing more bad than good, they are
making more enemies which they will execute which will keep the cycle going forever. During
this time, they were arresting people who were even suspected of being anti-Revolution which
helped spread the fear and chaos of the time because anyone could go to jail with no reasoning
behind it. The intended audience for this was the people in charge like Robespierre and the
National Assembly because they were the ones who would be able to change the things
brought up in her argument, nobody else would be able to put an end to executions or try to
rebuild instead of fighting. Document 4 is also a great example of people wanting a less violent
Revolution, in this address Charles James Fox says that it is really sad that the French people,
who could be making good changes for France are being governed by corrupt people and being
forced to commit crimes and punishments. He is fighting for a less violent Revolution because
he sees how these leaders are ruining what could be a very progressive revolution by fighting
over their power and controlling the people and making them do what they want. He was an
advocate for the revolution, but he did not like the way it was happening, so he did what he
could to fix it. The intended audience for this would be both the people and those in charge
because if he could make the people aware of what was happening to them, they might be able
to fight back and stop the corruption, or if not, the people in charge could realize that the
Revolution might be less devastating without their interference. These people were the people
who actually cared about the French people, they wanted the Revolution for the improvement
to life it would bring in the end, just not the killing that was happening during it.

In conclusion, as an instrument of the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror had far
more drawbacks than advantages with leaders trying to justify their actions, the citizens not
being able to trust their own government, and people who wanted the Revolution to be less
violent because they saw what affect the violence was having on the country. The Reign of
Terror was awful for France and all of the executions and actions taken throughout it led to
turmoil and instability throughout the country.