The Fall of Robespierre
In the second year of the first French Republic on the evening of the ninth day of a month they called Thermidor (July 27, 1794, to use our calendar) the revolutionary leader Maximilien Robespierre was named a fugitive by his own government.
The day before, Robespierre gave a speech to the National Convention threatening his enemies and defending his actions during what we now call “the Reign of Terror.” He saw himself as a defender of virtue, and the Terror was his way of purging his republic of those unworthy to benefit from it, his detractors, those he called “counter-revolutionaries.” Only after Terror purged the land could he have peace.
Historians are unclear as to what exactly was going through his head before he made that speech. Robespierre was more controversial than he had ever been before. It may have been possible to excuse his threats and moral posturing in the earlier months of the revolution, but now more and more heads were rolling. Robespierre made it clear he was willing to kill his enemies. How did he think his enemies would respond?
He gave this ill-advised speech on 8 Thermidor and on 9 Thermidor, the National Convention had him and his conspirators arrested and sent to different prisons. However, none of the prisons agree to take them so, unbeknownst to the National Convention, they were released and regrouped at the Hotel de Ville. When the National Convention found out, they ordered their armed forces to march on the Hotel. They arrived and surrounded the building at around 2:00 in the morning on 10 Thermidor.
How the bullet connected with Robespierre’s jaw is a mystery. A national guardsman, Charles-André Meda, claimed to have fired the shot. Others believed Meda was lying and that Robespierre shot himself, but this opened up more questions. Was he full of regret? Panicking? Trying to become a martyr? Rumors flew throughout Paris.
Regardless of his aims, Robespierre’s life did not end in a “romantic” taking of his own life, nor a dramatic fall in a battle. He was instead carted out of the Hotel with a shattered and bandaged jaw. He lay weak and helpless on a courtroom table and was found guilty of treason. In one last twist of historical irony, the great revolutionary was brought to the Place de la Révolution where he met the same fate as his political enemies.
Sic semper tyrannis.
The Revolutionary Mindset
The French Revolution casts a long shadow on history. When contrasted with the English and American revolutions that came before, it is a stark reminder of who we can be when we are at our worst. Not only that, it is a warning to would-be revolutionaries what may seem like a road to glorious of triumph over evil enemies leads to you becoming just like them. In Robespierre’s case this was true in life and in death.
Our Anglo-American minds view revolutions favorably, which makes sense. Inevitable bloodshed aside, the English and American Revolutions were quite tame. Both successfully overthrew the existing regime and established a more liberal society where former enemies eventually became friends.
In the American Revolution, the people are like a dog who realizes he is finally big enough to jump over the fence and be free. The French Revolution on the other hand was like a dog who jumps back over the fence and then proceeds to eat his owners.
Washington and Cromwell have make us overlook Robespierre. The revolutionary remains a romantic archetype in the western ethos for his impenetrable moral character in the face of an overbearing world power. But how does a revolutionary guarantee the end of his life will look like a peaceful retirement on Mount Vernon instead of a shattered jaw tied with a bandage around his soon-to-be missing head?
One way to keep your neck intact is to simply end the revolution. Once you have accomplished the goals of the revolutionary party, there is no need to fight. During the Terror, every citizen in Paris was charged with finding and exposing “counter-revolutionaries.” That much tension has a breaking point, as we’ve seen.
This was the First Republic’s problem, there was no end in sight. Revolution was a constant state during those first few years with various ideological groups vying for power and individuals seeking their own best interest. Eventually, you have to admit you’re just revolutionaries for revolutionary’s own sake.
This is something the whole West can learn from the French.
The last few centuries can be defined as a period of endless revolution. Every major world power has a revolution in its history that reshaped its government. The idea of an “Independence Day” would be unheard of in the 1500s but now virtually every country celebrates one.
This is not to say the revolutions should not have happened, but to point out the influence of our history. More people live in a revolutionary state than ever before. This must affect how the people view the state and how to fix it when needed.
A Civil War breaking out shortly after a revolution is not unique to our own country. France went through several regime changes after theirs as well. Revolutions breed revolutions. It must be a mix between the intoxicating glory of being “the one to change everything” and a lack of knowing how to create peaceful change.
The only thing that can stop the endless succession of revolutions is to end the revolutionary mindset. That can only be done by recognizing its source: polarization.
Polarization
The revolutionary mindset easily breeds polarization because the political climate during revolutionary periods is quite binary. Do you support the revolution or not? If you do, you desire progress and if you don’t, you want to conserve the past. The farther apart the two sides get and the thicker the line is drawn, the more likely it is people will take revolutionary action.
The revolutionary mindset is certainly not restricted to those who desire progress, however. In the vacuum of power created by the fallen First Republic of France, a young Corsican general stepped up to lead, eventually amassing more centralized power than the late King Louis XVI. This revolution was “conservative” in the sense that it played on the desires of people to return to a lost time of stability.
Here we have a dichotomy of desires. One side tempts us to return to a time in the past perceived to be an ideal. Another wants to fight for an ideal time in the future. Both of these ideas are revolutionary in that they believe these things are within the power of man. This earthly hope is necessary in a revolutionary.
For us, this dichotomy is manifest by the “liberal and conservative” political spectrum. Both see each other as a political oppressor to be overcome. One finds it insane to want more “progress” and the other is baffled by the idea progress could be shunned. I mean, come on, it’s 20xx, people! Another side earnestly believes things used to be better before [insert president here], and we should return to that place.
Despite their earnestness, each side casts the other’s desire as ridiculous. Really, neither are incorrect. They’re both ridiculous. One wants to bring heaven to earth and the other longs for an ideal past that hasn’t existed since Eden. Yet “liberals” continue to push the progressive envelope and “conservatives” continue to pine for a bygone day somehow resembling both the 1950s and the 1300s.
Both of these come from a desire for earthly perfection, the impossibility of which some Christians even refuse to see. Yet these two takes on earthly perfection are different enough to create strong division. Both swear up and down that the other is Fascist or Communist and runs so fast in the other direction they actually become the thing they are being accused of.
The fact that the accusations of both sides are references to historically revolutionary states is no coincidence. We recognize as evil in our enemies something we refuse to recognize in ourselves. By refusing to recognize the log in our own eye, we drift further apart.
So, What Do We Do?
This is an important question, but it is secondary. Ironically, the very question is revolutionary. When faced with some injustice or wrong thinking our revolutionary brains spring into action and ask, “Who do I fight?” It’s a misguided nobility.
The real first step is not action; this is the lie that revolution has fed us. When we are fired up, any action will satisfy, even impotent actions like tweeting.
As revolutionary addicts, we first need to admit we have a problem and then seek to make amends. We need to examine what the scope of the problem is. What ideologies led to the revolutionary mindset? What was good/bad about that ideological system? How has that system affected me?
We have lived in the revolutionary age for five hundred years. Back then, we just called them “reformations” but the spirit is the same. This spirit predates us, our country, and even the Christian faith. The first act against God was a failed revolution.
The good news is, there are ways to break free of the revolutionary mindset personally. We can refuse to identify with the left, right, or the ever-disappearing center and just say “You know what? I’m not playing.” We can choose to live a life of peace amidst the modern revolutionary mindset and move on to a higher ideology: one that builds on the past and reforms it, instead of seeking its destruction.
To do that on a global scale, however? That will take many revolutions.[1]
[1] Revolutions of the earth around the sun, that is. I’m sorry, I couldn’t help myself.