frederick-the-great:

francebeforepants1789:

bootyofpavus:

I just love pre death penalty Robespierre very much….

*sighs heavily* ughh

Yeah, so.  There’s this thing called the skid theory, which, according to our good friend Albert Soboul, implies that 1789-1791 was all fine and dandy but 1792-1794 transformed the Revolution’s aims into that of a bloodthirsty dictatorship led by none other than Robespierre.  Sounds pretty fatalist, right? 

It’s a great filler piece, no doubt, in attempt to fabricate an explanation.  But, to quote Soboul: “There was not a skid of the Revolution in 1792, but a will of the revolutionary bourgeoisie to maintain the cohesion of the Third Estate through an alliance with the popular masses, without whose support the gains of 1789 would have been forever compromised…

…Reintroducing into history the contingent and the irrational does not seem to constitute progress in the profession of a historian, but indeed retreat and almost a surrender” (271). 

The thought of a “pre-death penalty” and “post-death penalty” Robespierre is therefore ridiculous.  Robespierre shifted his views based on the demands of the time, as several politicians throughout history have in times of urgent crisis.  As Soboul mentions, an alliance with the people was required, and certain Terror legislation reputed for its notoriety, such as the Law of 22 Prairial, were designed to prevent excess bloodshed and stop popular violence from flaring up. 

So. Let’s eliminate the notion together that Robespierre suddenly turned into a bloodthirsty hell demon in 1792 when he voted for the death of Louis. Because guess what?  The majority of the Convention voted the same way. 

Have a wonderful day, everyone. 🙂

I agree with this but I also think that the views that Robespierre held in 1789 are not less valid than those in 1793 just because it was “a time of crisis”. And vice-versa. The fact that Robespierre accepted the death penalty from a determined moment onwards doesn’t make it any less exceptional that he was one of the only people to want the abolition before in a time that most people were in favour of the death penalty (Even supporters of Beccaria would think the death penalty was required in cases of treason and danger to civil and public life).

What I mean is while I do think that “pre-death penalty Robespierre” was the “good” Robespierre is a erroneous assertion because you can’t really pick and chose which Robespierre you like while analysing his thought and is also a lack of understanding of the development (Without the positivist connotation) of revolutionary thought (also the good and bad involves most of the times a simplistic judgement of the situation) I also think we shouldn’t take the opposite direction which is to believe that the views Robespierre held before 1792-93 are totally invalid and unimportant before the supposed “evolution” of his thought. What should matter is why he changed and what brought about that change and even to wonder how what he thought during 1789 or 1790 goes in line with what he thinks 2 years later.