The Reign of Terror is Unjustified

The WarOne, he has to justify the deaths of those counter-revolutionaries.That's like asking me to justify the deaths of Confederate soldiers in the American civil war. They were in an armed uprising to overthrow the government.Two, he also has to justify the deaths of those REVOLUTIONARIES themselves.I dont have to justify them, it is the non revolutionary side that committed these crimes, those against the republican government. But I do agree that the deaths of the revolutionaries caused by counter revolutionaries are unjustified, which is why the reign of terror prevented a larger scale uprising and even more suffering.Who wants to stay in a country where they CANNOT RESPECT RELIGION, HAVE THEIR PRIVACY INVADED, HAVE A GROUP OF ABSOLUTE POWER, AND THEY CAN'T EVEN SAY A BAD THING ABOUT ITI already made the rebuttal about them having absolute power, it is justified due to the emergency situation. Pro has made allegations that citizens have their privacy invaded but does back up his statement with facts/sources. Only a fool would respect the corrupt Catholic church at the time (i'll go into why it is corrupt in a bit).not to mention that [people] could die and lose against so much of France's enemies.That only helps the case for the needing of the reign of terror, give 10,000 lives to save 100,000.There's a reason so many nobles escaped to Austria during the Reign of Terror. That was because they wanted to take power from the people back into their own hands. Austria, being a monarchy (with close marital ties with the French Royal family) seemed like the obvious palce to go if they wanted to go against the republic.Reign of Terror - End resultsI agree with Pro's analysis that the reign of terror did not lead to the modern republic, I made that point in an attempt to showcase why Pro's argument was flawed (which he still has not corrected). Correlation does not equal causation. Pro has still not drawn the connections between the reign of terror and the rise of Napoleon.Even so, a year after the reign of terror (ended in 1794), France held elections in 1795[1] where ALL law abiding and tax paying citizens could vote, the immediate result was a democracy, not napoleon's imperialism.Pro's end result argument is hence, rendered invalid.The poorRobespierre rationed bread to the poor, reduced bread prices so that everybody could feed themselves even whilst fighting half the world and fending off rebels[2]. The ancien regime would never have done this but the Revolutionaries did so, and did this during the 1793-1794 era, during the so called reign of terror. Defenitely this is a part of the reign of terror since reign of terror is a name given to the time period where Maximilien Robespierre took his emergency powers. I don't reckon that anybody would say providing food to the poor is unjustified.King of France (Louis XVI) Did [the king of France] chop off 12 heads in 5 minutesNo, he starved 12 stomachs in 5 seconds. The same fool who sent soldiers, ships and money in a foreign war (American Revolution) yet completely disreguarded the condition of his own people. To be fair, it was not just the king of France, it were the aristocrats and nobels who really made the ancien regime terrible.Did [King of France] destroy the church, even if they were technically battling for power over the peopleThe church was battling to have control over people's lives, which is why it was justified to eliminate this threat to democracy in the reign of terror.Not to mention [King of France] would not have lead the people into the crazy war with huge losses of the populationHe would have because we know he did, the American revolution. Let me just show ONE example of why French Monarch government (and the Catholic Church) before the revolution was so bad:"Rabbits might destroy the peasant's garden[/farms/livelihood] and pigeons eat his grain, but he must not kill them. They were protected for the lord's hunting. The peasant's fences were broken down and his crops trampled in the chase, but he could claim no damages. In addition to the dues to the king and the nobles, the peasants had to pay dues to the church. These and other obligations seemed senseless and unreasonable in an age when people were coming to believe in the rule of reason."So peasants were not only subjected to harsh taxation (the ancien regime refused to abolish serfdom mind you), but they were subjected to such sensless rules from the dark ages which were detrimental to their survival, to their ability to feed their families. Mind you, this is just ONE example (would give more, but I need more character space).Surely, any counter revolutionary who is willing to rebel against his own countryfolk and kill them to go back to this terrible era must be dealt with appropriately.Source:[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://revolutions.mka.org...[3]http://history-world.org...