Hating the Crown, Sparing the Man
Can a republic that has abolished kings spare the king it deposed? Paine argues that it must, and that a revolution which kills him copies the monarchies it replaced.
Paine opened by restating his hatred of monarchy and then argued for the man. Louis's vices belonged to the system that raised him; the Constituent Assembly deserved more blame than Louis for handing him back his powers after his flight in 1791; and the aid he sent America was a good act done through him. The proposal was banishment: prison until the war ended, then exile to America. Beneath it lay a larger claim, that France, first in Europe to abolish royalty, should be first to abolish the death penalty, a punishment monarchies had trained their subjects to use.
- monarchy
- revolution
- clemency
- capital punishment
- revenge
- gratitude
- banishment
- political exile
- republicanism
- humanitarianism
- political punishment
- individual and institution
- political prudence
- political violence
- popular judgment
- legislative ethics
- political responsibility
- political accountability
Enter a dialogue
- Wasn't keeping Louis alive a way of leaving the Republic's enemies a king to rally around?
- Born in an obscure neighbourhood, you think, Louis would have shown social virtues. How far is a man to blame for what a crown made of him?
- England put a Stuart king to death, yet restored his son, and only banishing the family ended the threat. What does that show about executing a king?
- The king now on trial sent money and soldiers that helped America win independence. Why should that good deed weigh for him against a charge of treason?
- After the king's flight, the first revolutionary parliament restored his powers without asking the people. Why do you blame that parliament more than the prisoner?