An army encouraged to mutiny
What becomes of a country whose soldiers have been urged to disobey their officers? The House is told this was done in France deliberately, and that an army detached from its officers guards nobody's liberty — it is the shortest road out of civil authority.
Supply was the evening's business: the year's money for the army, voted as it was voted every year. Burke used the vote to describe what French policy had done to a French army and to draw the English consequence from it. Soldiers taught that obedience is conditional do not turn into citizens; they turn into the instrument of whoever speaks to them next, and no settled government survives that for long. The argument lands harder for its occasion. Members were counting regiments, and one of them was explaining what a regiment is for.
- standing armies
- mutiny
- military
- civil authority
- anarchy
- tyranny
- power
- despotism
Enter a dialogue
- Soldiers who refuse an unjust order look like citizens, not anarchists. Why is an army detached from its officers the road out of civil authority?
- Where does a soldier's conscience end and the collapse of civil authority begin, once a regiment starts choosing which orders bind it?
- Someone is told that obedience is conditional and owed only while it is deserved. What does that teaching do to them, on your account?
- If obedience in an army must be unconditional to be worth anything, what does that demand of the soldier who thinks his officers wrong?