Sometimes complete change is necessary. When the old government (the monarchy) got taken over by the radicals, a new period called the Reign of Terror, started. The foreign countries got scared that this might happen to them and started a war with the new-look French government. Challenges and problems the radical/revolutionary government faced were external threats, internal threats, and were criticized for their methods of dealing with internal threats. Was the Reign of Terror morally ethical, in other words, were these extreme methods justified? The Reign of Terror was justified for three reasons: the external threat did require it, the internal threat did deserve it, and the methods had to be severe because the country is unstable. Firstly, the…show more content… The radical/revolutionary government were killing and expelling suspicious people in order “to protect the public safety from both enemies both in and outside of France” (Document E). They also showed the chaotic counterrevolutionaries that they cannot easily win with the beheading of King Louis XVI and it also sent a message that ‘if we can kill the king, we can kill you’ (Document F). The leader of the radical government, Robespierre, also sent a clear message to his lower men and the counterrevolutionaries of why he is killing so many people, “You should therefore still base your conduct upon the stormy circumstances in which the republic finds itself . . . Social protection is due only peaceful citizens.” Basically, he is saying that if the country’s situation is unstable because of the revolts caused by the counterrevolutionaries, then the radical/revolutionary government has to be very harsh to teach them a lesson (Document G). What Robespierre said is fair and justified because he isn’t just killing the rebels without a reason and he had to use severe and extreme methods because the country is
