5: Instances of Revolutionary Violence
It has been shown that the French Revolution was a revolution of faith, more like religion than science of philosophy. There was a complete contradiction between words and actions: while they exalted the principles of liberty and fraternity, no liberty was tolerated and fraternity was quickly replaced by "frenzied massacres" among factions that considered all others to be mortal enemies.
The opposition of word and deeds results from the intolerance that accompanies all religious beliefs. Those with strong religious motivations demand tolerance for their own beliefs, but have none for those of anyone else, and violence is the inevitable result.
Psychological Causes of Revolutionary Violence
The cruelties of the revolution were not much different than those of others before it. The Inquisition of the church and the Terror of the Montaignards were essentially the same: an attempt to enforce beliefs and a fear of any that did not hold them.
When the church and the state were in agreement, there was little distinction between them. Consider that Louis XIV, whom history does not regard as a particularly cruel ruler, was driven by his faith to execute or banish hundreds of thousands of protestants. This was not uncommon among monarchs.
While the Montaignards professed no particular religious dogma, their beliefs about society were no less dogmatic - and they were no less "beliefs" in that they were maintained with fervor in spite of a lack of plausibility.
History compels us to accept that terror is a method that all "believers" regard as a necessity, as historical records invariably reflect the violence that is the basis of religious faith. To compel others to comply with their demands, the religious believers always seek to instill fear in other men, whether the vague threats of an eternal hell or the torments that will be inflicted upon them in the present life.
While politics may choose to separate itself from religion, it is also based on faith in abstract principles - and the more implausible they are, the more that partisans must turn to threat and violence to get others to accept their beliefs.
In fact, politics tends to be worse than religion in this regard, as the religious may at times satisfy themselves with following a moral code without imposing it upon others, whereas politicians mean at all times to control the behavior of men and bend it to suit their preferences, as their goals are immediate and material.
The Revolutionary Tribunals
The Revolutionary Tribunals were courts instituted to identify and eliminate those loyal to the monarchy, but were eventually turned to identify and eliminate anyone who opposed the Montaignard faction, and in so doing terrorize the rest into compliance.
These tribunals operated independently of the legislation: they would bring to trial anyone accused, assume guilt and demand proof of evidence, and come to a summary judgment. The power of the tribunals became absolute wit the infamous "Law of 22 Parial" which forbade the accused to employ counsel for their defense, suppressed the hearing of witnesses, and made death the sole penalty for the condemned. In effect, the tribunals sent to the scaffold anyone accused or arrested without much consideration of their guilt or innocence.
Neither did they show much discretion: the aristocracy and peasants alike were guillotined. Men and women, young or old. Children and octogenarians were executed. Members of opposing political factions were exterminated, as were members of the Montaignard's own faction if they were deemed unsupportive.
There were in France up to 178 such tribunals, 40 of which were perambulant, and which executed on average 28 persons per day. This does not include those who were executed by rioters or massacred by militia at the behest of the revolutionary factions. The daily spectacle caused the people to be jaded to the violence, such that "mothers would take their children to see people guillotined as today they take them to the marionette theater."
Even those subjected to execution seemed very indifferent to their own death. While history may portray such behavior as a mark of valor, it was quite commonplace - men were simply resigned to the inevitability of it.
Le Bon speculates that this indifference may have been to such an extreme that it undermined the potency of terrorism and undermined its purposes. If death by guillotine is constant and predictable, it loses its shock value, and if men expect it is inevitable, they no longer fear it.
Terror in the Provinces
The executions of the tribunals represented only a portion of the massacres in the provinces during the terror. The revolutionary army was "composed of vagabonds and brigands" who routinely engaged in pillage and slaughter for their own profit and entertainment.
An account is given of the town of Bedouin, originally populated by two thousand inhabitants. The town was leveled and its population dispersed: 433 houses leveled or burned, 16 persons guillotined, 47 shot down, and all others fled to the mountains to take shelter in caverns. All of this was done by some unknown military force, without any apparent authorization.
Another account speaks of the death of nearly 5,000 persons - men, women, and children who shot or pressed into the Loire to drown. In Noirmoutier, people were burned alive in their homes, young girls "violated" and massacred, children torn apart, and babies tossed from bayonet to bayonet.
(EN: This goes on for a while, as there are many such accounts of inventive and hideous brutality by the military against civilians in various regions.)
Whereas there are no historical records of legal authorization of these activities, there is ample evidence of the indifference to them. One particularly vicious office named Carrier was brought before the convention, where he boasted of executing over a hundred persons of day and bragging of hideous brutalities inflicted on the civilian population. The legislators "could say nothing in reply" to this spectacle, and took no punitive action.
Some mention is made of the vandalism and wonton destruction of property, but this is of lesser concern and rather commonplace in history for a new regime to attempt to erase the one it had overthrown by destroying buildings, monuments, libraries, works of art, tombs, or any physical artifact that spoke to the accomplishments of the ousted regime. However, such rationale is merely posturing, as it is clear that the primary motivation of the brigands was merely destruction and plunder, as their targets seemed entirely random.
It is arguable whether the violence and destruction were a means to demolish the old society to make room for the new, or merely the misbehavior of men who have been liberated from all social restraints, though in aggregate it seems to have begun with the first and degenerated into the second.