Peace with a Regicide Government
Can a state negotiate peace with a government whose authority rests on revolution, violence, and the rejection of lawful sovereignty? The answer determines whether diplomacy preserves justice or converts accommodation into complicity.
Burke treats a peace proposal in 1796 as a test of whether Britain can bargain with a government born through regicide without granting it moral and political legitimacy. He attacks the Directory’s claims to lawful authority, connects diplomacy to accountability, and warns that coercion and deception can make negotiation a surrender of judgment rather than a route to security. Against expedient administration, he sets sovereignty restrained by justice, evidence, and responsibility.
- evidence
- justice
- authority
- coercion
- legitimacy
- sovereignty
- power
- testimony
- tyranny
- diplomacy
- responsibility
- usurpation
- rhetoric
- revolution
- war and peace
- international relations
- war
- political judgment
Enter a dialogue
- You call France an 'armed doctrine', a Colossus with one foot across the Channel and one on British soil. Why can such an enemy not be bargained with?
- Between independent states there is no judge, so the neighbours must judge a menace themselves, even before it strikes. Could that principle excuse any war?
- The French Directory refused a joint negotiation with Britain and its allies, picking states off like deer from the herd. What would a separate peace have cost Britain?
- Ministers said Britain was too exhausted to fight on. What did you see in the country's growing population and capital that made you say the opposite?
- For you, Jacobinism is the revolt of a country's enterprising talents against its property. Why does a state built on confiscation threaten every neighbour?