In Defense of Maximilien de Robespierre

Throughout the years since the French Revolution and, more specifically, the Reign of Terror, the name Maximilien Robespierre has become associated with those of tyrants and oppressive rulers. His image has been crafted with the likeness of a ruthless, bloody dictator, leader of the Jacobins, who sent thousands of French citizens to the guillotine. Such a man was vilified by his contemporaries and is still treated as such by much of prosperity, and his political agenda is regarded as that of a tyrannical leader. However, this is an unfair demonization of Robespierre, for his true beliefs and ideals mark him as a man who ardently believed in the revolutionary cause, and was willing to do what he could to elevate the rights of men in France. Maximilien de Robespierre was not corrupt and tyrannical as popular belief makes him out to be, but instead a revolutionary who acted in the name of democracy.
The first of many accusations against Robespierre derives from the popular notion that he had enough power and authority during the Revolution to be properly labeled as a tyrant. This was not necessarily true. Far from wielding the power of an authoritarian dictator, or even a monarch, the only true position of power that Robespierre had ever held, aside from the presidency of the National Convention, was as a member of the Committee of Public Safety. The Committee of Public Safety consisted of twelve men who presided over the security of the new French Republic against both foreigners and internal rebels. The Committee was delegated nearly all the powers of the National Convention, with the significant exceptions of declaring war, making peace, and legislation. Those three required popular vote of the Convention, save for the right to make laws, which was later granted to the Committee in March of 1793 for protective measures. So,