Kyle Bennett
Primary Source Analysis
Professor Harder
February 18, 2015

Both Robespierre and Brissot made valid arguments in their speeches to the Jacobin Club in their debate about war and whether or not going to war with a foreign country would be beneficial for their ultimate goal, which was getting rid of the absolute monarchy. Robespierre’s argument in his speech was a little more obscure, whereas, at least I felt that, Brissot’s argument was right to the point and rather convincing. However, looking at the two arguments more closely, I would say Robespierre’s argument is the one I would have agreed with if I was in the Jacobin Club, mainly because it was most logically. Brissot made a very simple point that made complete sense and that is, in most wars, the country that attacks first takes quick control of the war and usually wins the war; this was his main point because he saw war as inevitable. He also made another very good point which was about the émigrés, people who had fled the country. The émigrés at the time of the Revolution were typically people of the second estate and people of nobility who opposed the Revolution. These people who were huge supporters of not only King Louis XVI, but also of the monarchy. Basically what Brissot said is that the people who fled the country were not only granted asylum in other countries, but treated like princes. Brissot thought that the émigrés were in their new countries rallying up the people to march into France, kill the Revolution, and take back control of Europe. Brissot thought that if France waited too long to attack, they would become the defenders in war, have to fight inside of the Rhine, their homes would be destroyed, and not only would they lose the war but the Revolution would come to an early end which is why he stressed starting war so heavily. Another point of Brissot’s argument, which I was not in agreement with, is he thought war was inevitable. Brissot said that if the emperor of Austria wants war, then it is necessary for France to attack first. He also said if the emperor wants war in the spring, it is necessary before the spring so France can attack first. And the part that I did not agree with is Brissot said even if the emperor does not want war at all, war is necessary because so France can still have the satisfaction of beating Austria and so they will not have to worry about war anymore. This is where Brissot lost me in his argument. I agree in war it is necessary to attack first, but if France wanted to complete its ultimate goal of a successful Revolution, starting war was not necessary. Robespierre’s argument definitely made the most sense if France wanted a successful Revolution. Robespierre’s basis for his argument was that a new constitution had just been passed and signed by the King, so why would France want to show aggression and contradict everything the National Assembly, which he was a