The essence of eighteenth-century French political thought
This matter is completely ignored by traditional historiography of eighteenth-century political thought:
As a matter of fact, eighteenth-century political thought in France, and in particular during the revolutionary stint, was mainly a problem of finding the right boundaries to the concept of sovereignty as redefined by natural law on the one side, and the nation and patrie (fatherland), on the other. Since natural law posits that men are born free and equal, then the problem is that no entity should be allowed to rule and govern unless they own this political entity. This is where the theory of the nation developed. A nation is a civitas of free and equal men. By the same token, this nation occupies a political space as defined as the patrie. The love for the patrie is necessary since a republic is based on equality, and everyone must thus participate. Without civic virtues, this republic is doomed. Now this patrie is the political space replacing absolutism, despotism, the Ancien Régime. The Revolution triggered passions all over Europe between the monarchists and the revolutionaries. The war became one between those fighting for freedom and equality, the patrie ("Allons enfants de la patrie" etc.), and those defending the old monarchism. In this sense, many revolutionaries defended a universal and unbounded version of the nation and patrie. In particular one can mention Danton, Robespierre, and Cloots. Their writings are merely drawing the logical conclusions on the century's political ideas. Natural law posits a universal pre-disposition. The problem is only to define the boundaries of the legitimate sovereign for a free and equal humankind.
