One reason why the Revolution became more radical is because that became necessary to keep the Revolution going. As more obstacles appeared, they had to keep things in balance of even silence opposition. I will go up to the Terror.

It can be observed as increasingly desperate attempts to keep the revolution alive while also resolving the issues that France was having. In the first scenario, keeping it alive, it was crucial that no outside force crushed the revolution. Early on this can be seen in the silencing of the clergy. Alphonse Aulard describes it in a blunt terms "denounced, hunted, imprisoned, deported, sometimes put to death." (1). Now, to assuage the economic issues, the Revolutionaries needed wealth. One avenue they saw was through the bourgeois & Gallican doctrine of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy (2). As one might guess, seizing the property and wealth of the First Estate of all things was controversial, and this only widened the divide between the government, priests, and Catholic citizens of France. One Parisian Journal was bold enough to even state this was contributing to their misfortune (3). This seizure of land came in spite of the fact that both the first and second estate were willing to waive their tax privilege "The nobility of the bailliage of Blois believes itself in duty bound to lay at the feet of the nation all the pecuniary exemptions." (4) and "The clergy of the bailliage of Blois declare that for the future they desire to sustain the burden of taxation."

This can mean two things, depending on how you wish to interpret it. One, it was in the bourgeoisie's best interest to take radical measures such as this in order to make more wealth. They didn't care about what the nobility did, as they has already made them obsolete, and church property was an opportunity. Two, the Revolutionaries were sincere in their beliefs, wanted to fix France's problems, even if that meant taking mode radical measures in the religious sphere. The nobility and clergy were becoming victims of the ancien régime and were acting out to survive. In either case it may be noted that the opposition to Revolution had to be crushed. In the former, no wealth. In the latter, no purpose.

As for the politics, Clubs became a more worrisome entity, the threat of stability became another possible end to Revolution, and identity began to matter. In fact, because of chaos, some considered ending the Revolution "Everyone calls for order and public peace, everyone wants an end to Revolution. From now on, these are the unequivocal signs of patriotism." (5). In some ways the common people had been caught up with this national identity of patriotism and raising a banner for liberty (6). As the politics changed and as people became more and more riled up, it's no surprise that things would begin to take more drastic turns.

Now it's time to address the elephant in the room: The Terror and Execution of the King. Now, this topic has a bunch of different interpretation. And I would be lying if I said I or anyone else had the true answer, for why Robespierre did what he did anyway. As for the King Louis XVI, I would say the answer is more simple. He was someone who had betrayed the Revolution, he and émigrés were considered conspirators with foreign powers seeking to overthrow the Revolution through warfare (7). Robespierre, on the other hand, is a bit trickier. Of course it's easy to label him as a power-monger who thought killing everyone was the way to secure power, except it backfired. Aulard viewed it as a way to condemn personal adversaries. Albert Mathiez saw him as the Revolution's protector, believing 22 Prairial as necessary. In the more heroic light, Robespierre is doing what he thought necessary to keep the flame going. In the power hungry case, it's simply that, a man carrying out needless bloodshed for the sake of his own benefit.

As for why America didn't go that path? It's a simple case of different circumstances. Americans didn't have a dying feudal system and economic crisis that would force them to take such measures. They had also already defined their path from several philosophers, and being a colony, had the British form to rely on. The French were largely heading in unknown territory.

In short, much of it can be described as carrying out the will necessary for maintaining the Revolution, even if it came with a terrible cost. Plus different circumstances means different outcomes. This is only my interpretation, there are others and I encourage you to look at multiple points of view.

Thank you.

1. Alphonse Aulard Christianity and the French Revolution, trans. Lady Frazer. 89.

2. Civil Constitution of the Clergy (1790).

3. Alpha History "A Paris journal opposes church land seizures (1790).

4. Merrick Whitcombe, ed. "Typical Cahiers of 1789" in Translations and Reprints From The Original Sources of European History.

5. “National Assembly Debate on Clubs (20 September 1791),” Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,

6. Révolutions de Paris, no. 68 (23 October 1790), 116.

7. “"The Padua Circular" (5 July 1791),” Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,