Pacificus Helvidius Debate Analysis

466 Words2 Pages

During the times of the Pacificus Helvidius debate, France is going through a revolution. King Louis and Marie Antoinette have both been beheaded. France has a completely new government and declares war on the monarchy of Great Britain. France helped America during our revolution to help us gain independence from Great Britain, without France’s help we wouldn’t have become a free nation. After the revolution, a treaty is put into place, Treaty of Alliance put into place in 1778. This treaty basically states that if France were to be attacked and needed help, America would have to help France out because we the only reason we gained independence from Great Britain was due to the fact that France helped us. At this point in time, France has declared war on, Great Britain, Austria, Holland, Prussia, and Spain. There are clearly two sides to the debate. …show more content…

I am still very undecided as to which side I agree with the most. Pacificus is convincing because clearly the American government is in not such position to go back to war again, we just finished our own revolution and our government isn’t completely stable yet. For America to re enter war would be very foolish. Either way, we wouldn’t be much help anyway; our nation is still very small at this time. But, with Helvidius, clearly George Washington was not acting like a president in this instance, but more so a king. He does not hold the authority to proclaim such a thing, and what does that say for the American word? As you can see, both sides have very strong cases and there are key points from both sides which makes it very hard to decide. If I had to decide I would agree more with Helvidius. George Washington believed that proclaiming neutrality was the way to go, which is completely fine, but there were other ways to go about doing it. We did not make the treaty with King Louis, we signed the treaty with France, and to go back on our word is not the right thing to

Open Document