Peace and Revolutionary Legitimacy
The issue is whether peace can be made with a regime born from revolution and regicide, or whether such a treaty would surrender the principles that make government legitimate.
Writing in 1795, Burke opposed negotiations with France's Regicide Directory because he saw its revolutionary government as an organised assault on monarchy, inherited authority, and the European social order. Peace, in his view, required more than ending hostilities: it required a government capable of keeping faith and restraining power. A treaty with the Directory would therefore reward revolution, weaken constitutional government, and teach other rulers that violence could establish legitimacy.
- revolution
- political legitimacy
- legitimacy
- monarchy
- constitutionalism
- social order
- sovereignty
- authority
- political stability
- tyranny
- diplomacy
- political violence
- international relations
- political rhetoric
- peace
Enter a dialogue
- Ministers hoped a peace with France's Jacobin rulers would end the war. Why do you distrust any security a king-killing government can offer?
- Until October 1795 the Jacobin power was called an usurpation, then a pamphlet began calling it simply 'France'. What does that one word smuggle in?
- Some wars answer a just fear of danger, unlike wars chasing speculative gains. How can a nation tell a real threat from a pretext in advance?
- A pamphlet says a moderate kingdom endangers its neighbours more than a huge republic of king-killers. You call that pure Jacobinism. Why is a republic not safer?