When it comes to the controversy about whether if Robespierre was a "bloodthirsty charlatan" or a "defender of the Republic", differently people hold different opinions. Some people assert that Robespierre effectively used dictatorship to stop the spread of evil; others rebut the aforementioned claim, espousing the idea that Robespierre adapted extremely violent means to gain his own absolute power. As far as I am concerned, the latter opinion seems to be more appealing to me -- I think Robespierre should be called as a "bloodthirsty charlatan", since the end can never justify the means. First and foremost, according to Girondins, free speech and liberty should be defended all the time, "otherwise, the French Revolution is not worth fighting …show more content…
Gerald Seymour's well-known phrase "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" has been widely spread for decades. Nonetheless, I don't think this quote makes a lot of sense to me, since the terrorist and the freedom fighter are two divergent terms.The term "terrorist" represents a person who uses terror as the means to achieve his/her goal; the "freedom fighter" means a person whose overarching goal is freedom, but here, it talks nothing about his/her means or tactics used to reach the goal. The terrorists, who fight for freedom and equality, are truly freedom fighters. But albeit their legitimate demands, their means of achieving them are not legitimate, and those are what make them terrorists. Similarly, even Robespierre's goal of eliminating opposition groups was for the good of the society, the violent means he used could not be justified. In retrospect, not only was the sacrifice of individualism huge during the Reign of Horror, but also there was a tremendous loss of life -- the victims of the Reign of terror were countless, and even Robespierre himself, as a "victim of his own terror", was executed. All in all, If there is anyone out there who still doubts if Robespierre should be called as a "bloodthirsty charlatan", this essay is my