Was the reign of terror justified? i'm writing an essay on the french revolution and need a good essay topic asap!

No, I would say that the Reign of Terror was not justified. You can decide to elaborate however you wish, but it’d be pretty hard to justify the Reign of Terror as any sort of a good thing. Even if the motives behind it were originally sound and moral, the ends do not justify the means. The French Revolution (which later developed into the Reign of Terror) originally started as a peasant uprising, with the goal of abolishing the antiquated estates system, and closing the vast and ridiculous wage and quality-of-life gap between the rich and poor. Of course, as time went on, people of public importance, like Maximillien Robespierre for example, took advantage of the instability of revolutionary France. Robespierre and his affiliates, such as the Jacobin Club, began using the newfound ease of execution that resulted from the invention of the guillotine, to their own benefits. What was originally a movement to abolish the estates and the Ancien Régime, had now become a political tool that Robespierre was often using to execute his political opponents, detractors, and dissidents. Summary executions without trial were a staple of the Reign of Terror, and began happening more and more for reasons that were increasingly insignificant. Robespierre himself eventually found himself at the end of a Guillotine for his treachery; people were being executed constantly, and lived in constant fear that they would one day make a mistake that could cost them their life, hence the name of the Reign of Terror. And as history has shown us, time and time again, using violence to achieve political gain typically only causes damage in the long run, though goals may seem more easily attainable at the time. It was seen during the civil rights movement of the 1960’s, where Martin Luther King Jr.’s more peaceful method of civil disobedience quickly found more favor than Malcolm X’s radical and violent incitements did. And it was seen countless other times throughout history as well.

1) checks and balances- this idea is implemented in the constitution to ensure that no one branch of the federal government gains too much power. for example, the legislative branch(congress) can approve a bill that will then be sent to the executive branch (president). if the president does not like the bill or thinks that it violates the rights of citizens, he/she can veto the bill. vetoing the bill stops the bill from becoming a law. this check on power ensures that congress makes laws that do not violate the rights of citizens.

2) anti-federalists do not want to ratify the constitution unless it includes a bill of rights. the anti-federalists are worried that the constitution gives too much power to the federal government. having a strong central government caused problems when the us was still part of great britain. this is why the anti-federalists are fearful of this type of system.

3) federalists want a new constitution passed because it will fix america's weak political structure. before the us constitution is implemented, the constitution being used is known as the articles of confederation. this constitution has an extremely weak central government, allowing for disunity among the states.

can't do the whole thing, hope this

add me as friend then ill answer