French Revolution and Its Demons

I don't think you can just blame Robespierre when the CPS was signing these orders. In fact, prior to Thermidor Robespierre had not attended a lot of the CPS meetings.

@tomholmberg It is not necessary for him to sign these orders of the CDS - because it seems, he re presented sort of the highest virtue and people were looking up to him in that case - and he seemingly seemed to believe in the end this as well, that he was the instance who would decide who betrayed the virtue or not - for me it looked like a body where the limbs and in the end the head was cut off, so that only the embers of the Revolutionary spirit or virtue were left over and nobody was left to have a look to prevent corruption.

He is just not defending anybody any longer but only accusing them. Of course I agree that he is not alone, but the more I read in this book, the more it seems to me that he is the moral instance who acts as motor of all those death warrants (and here I mean against is former political collegues of the Convent Nationale).

@Hans - Karl Weiß Perhaps you should read the forthcoming book (due out in March 2022):

Robespierre: The Man Who Divides Us the Most

by Marcel Gauchet (Author), Malcolm DeBevoise (Translator)

How Robespierre’s career and legacy embody the dangerous contradictions of democracy Maximilien Robespierre (1758–1794) is arguably the most controversial and contradictory figure of the French Revolution, inspiring passionate debate like no other protagonist of those dramatic and violent events. The fervor of those who defend Robespierre the “Incorruptible,” who championed the rights of the people, is met with revulsion by those who condemn him as the bloodthirsty tyrant who sent people to the guillotine. Marcel Gauchet argues that he was both, embodying the glorious achievement of liberty as well as the excesses that culminated in the Terror. In much the same way that 1789 and 1793 symbolize the two opposing faces of the French Revolution, Robespierre’s contradictions were the contradictions of the revolution itself. Robespierre was its purest incarnation, neither the defender of liberty who fell victim to the corrupting influence of power nor the tyrant who betrayed the principles of the revolution. Gauchet shows how Robespierre’s personal transition from opposition to governance was itself an expression of the tragedy inherent in a revolution whose own prophetic ideals were impossible to implement. This panoramic book tells the story of how the man most associated with the founding of modern French democracy was also the first tyrant of that democracy, and it offers vital lessons for all democracies about the perpetual danger of tyranny.

@tomholmberg I still fail to see a positive connotations, this is far too much far fetched, terror also then just ment what it ment now to strike fear - intimitate.

I think the amelioration was subsequent to the period, so that it is the late 19th and early 20th centuries we start seeing terrific as positive.

@david Tomlinson Still reading the book, chapter by chapter, inching forward, in between some lighter stuff for digestion. However I fail to see the new perspective, other than Robespierre wasn't alone in this game, but all those statement that the terror did not serve as blue prints for later Revolutions and how to deal with counter revolutionaries are not working for me, how well the terror served to set an example how to get rid of political opponents, same as how Boney used propaganda and a police state, all fine examples for future dictators.

Indeed a worthwhile read, thanks for making me aware of it,

@Hans - Karl Weiß Book Talk here: https://ageofrevolutions.com/2022/01/17/questioning-the-terror-a-book-talk-with-michel-biard-and-marisa-linton/

Indeed, but I see that this English work is a shortened and abridged version of the French one.