The republican principle and imperialism are incompatible, whatever Napoleon himself thought of them. Have you ever studied French revolutionary wars? George Rude writes in _Revolutionary Europe, 1783-1815_ (NY: Harper & Row, 1964):
***** The problem arose even more acutely over the Low Countries and the Rhineland. France had, for the moment, been cleared of her enemies; the Austrians had been driven out of Belgium, the German princes from the Rhenish provinces and the Sardinians from Nice; and the Convention issued its declaration of 19 November that it would "grant fraternity and aid to all peoples who wish to recover their liberty". This was, of course, a direct and deliberate provocation to the rulers of Europe, including the English; but it also raised further questions: _who should speak for the "peoples", who should define "liberty", and what should happen to those who reject it?_ In the case of Nice, there was no great problem, as the Niçois, like the Savoyards, were eager for union with France; and this was accepted. But the Convention had decided on 15 December that the new revolutionary authorities and assemblies to be formed in the occupied territories should be elected only by citizens taking an oath "to be faithful to liberty and equality and to renounce privilege". So "patriots" alone had the vote; but the "patriots" of Belgium and the Rhineland, who welcomed "liberation" and voted for annexation, proved to be _a minority_. Thus the Convention, far from acceding to the spontaneous and enthusiastic wishes of the "liberated" peoples, had been led by the persuasive oratory of Dantonists and Girondins, the lobbying of foreign "patriots", the logic of France's "natural frontiers" and by the exigencies of war to take the first steps along the road of conquest and annexation.... (emphasis mine, pp. 210-211) *****
The problem of the French rule receiving only minority support from many peoples of occupied territories already existed in Europe, where France had a real claim to be the emissary of Enlightenment, liberating patriotic republicans from empires and monarchies. Beyond Europe, it became naked imperialism: "Bonaparte's Egyptian campaign was more blatantly imperialistic: it established no new institutions of any permanence, slavery was left untouched, and it neither attempted nor realized any 'revolutionary' objects" (Rude, p. 215). Let's not even talk about Napoleon's ill-fated expedition to San Domingo. The Jacobins (the most republican of the French revolutionary factions), especially Robespierre, "had been opposed all along to the war of 'liberation', to the conquest of France's 'natural frontiers' and the formation of 'sister republics'. Against these notions he [Robespierre]..urged the need to respect existing treaties, and the rights of small nations and neutrals: the most that France should promise would be _to assist a revolution that was already under way_" (emphasis mine, Rude, p. 211). The Jacobins' republican principle is worth remembering.
That said, there is really no comparison between French revolutionary wars and US imperial wars, as the latter are not born out of revolution at home and international reaction against it. -- Yoshie
* Calendar of Events in Columbus: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/calendar.html> * Anti-War Activist Resources: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/activist.html> * Student International Forum: <http://www.osu.edu/students/sif/> * Committee for Justice in Palestine: <http://www.osu.edu/students/CJP/>