-
4. A Republican Empire?
- Cornell University Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Our government should always have before its eyes this axiom of public law: the tranquility of republics diminishes as they grow. Anonymous petitioner, “Apperçu des Relations politiques et commerciales de la République française avec les diverses puissances d’Italie” Thus far this book has focused on debate about domestic political questions . The republican center, however, grappled just as fully with matters of foreign policy. From 1794 to 1799 questions relating to foreign policy and the international order were never far from the forefront of political discussion, reflecting the ongoing war and international crisis that marked the era. It was widely felt, not surprisingly, that the republic could be anchored in stable ground only when peace was achieved and the international situation settled. Indeed, in the summer of 1795 La RévellièreL épeaux labeled “achieving peace in Europe” one of three keys “to solidly founding the Republic.”1 Yet, at the same time, the Republic was emerging as continental Europe’s hegemonic power. From 1794 to 1798 French armies won a string of decisive victories in the Austrian Netherlands (modern-day Belgium), Holland, the German states, and across the Italian 1. Louis Marie de La Révellière-Lépeaux, Discours sur les rélations extérieures (Paris, 1795), 1–2. 4 A Republican Empire? Debate on Expansion, 1794–99 142 Reimagining Politics after the Terror peninsula, establishing a wide zone of French predominance and laying the foundations of the Napoleonic Empire. These exploits led to the question of what the Republic should do with the territories it controlled and, more broadly, the hegemonic position it occupied on the European stage. The result was a lively and serious debate about republican expansion and the nature of the international order. From a historical perspective, France’s political leaders found themselves in a novel situation, of which they were all too aware: while monarchies had conquered and annexed one another’s territories for centuries, no European republic had acquired a land-based empire on this scale since Rome. And the Roman Republic, as anyone educated in the eighteenth century knew, perished as Rome became an empire. Should the French Republic annex new territories, thus expanding its territorial limits, and risk becoming an empire? Should it use these territories as bargaining chips at the peace table (as was standard practice in eighteenth-century diplomacy)?2 Or should it explore other options and establish satellite republics , called “sister republics” during the Revolution, in the conquered territories? The question of what to do with the conquered territories—and, more generally, of the nature of the international order—emerged as one of the day’s most pressing issues. Crucially, these questions were apprehended in light of the fact that France was a republic. In terms of diplomacy, the French Republic would not follow the old conventions but would play by new, republican rules.3 More important still, foreign policy would be assessed according to its effect on the republic’s domestic health. Thus, debate on foreign policy was shaped by the day’s conceptual presuppositions regarding the nature of the republic as a political form. Those more classical in their republicanism feared the potentially corrosive effects of expansion, 2. On the balance-of-power notions that governed eighteenth-century diplomatic practice, see Paul Schroeder, The Transformation of European Politics, 1763–1848 (Oxford, 1994), 5–11; and Jeremy Black, The Rise of the European Powers, 1679–1793 (London, 1990), chap. 4. 3. E.g., Joseph Eschassériaux, De la Diplomatie, des droits des peuples, des principes qui doivent diriger un peuple républicain dans ses relations étrangères (Paris, 1794); Flassan, “Considérations sur la nature de nos relations futures avec l’Espange,” Year 3 (1794–95), MAE, MD Espagne 50, f. 250–56. More broadly, see Linda Frey and Marsha Frey, “‘The Reign of the Charlatans Is Over’: The French Revolutionary Attack on Diplomatic Practice,” Journal of Modern History 65 (December 1993): 706–44; Marc Belissa, Repenser l’ordre européen (1795–1802): De la société des rois aux droits des nations (Paris, 2006), 183–95. [54.210.85.205] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 05:44 GMT) A Republican Empire? 143 while those with a more modern orientation held that new political forms, notably representative government, enabled France to expand without endangering the body politic. If discussion turned on the differences between classical and modern visions of the republic as a political form, however, classical-republican anxieties fixed the terms of...