"Napoleonic Corruption" Topic

This is a tangent that developed from the "Beginner's Question" thread. Skannian had praised Napoleon for his legal, economic, and religious reforms, and for emancipating the Jews and for reducing corruption. I agreed on the first three, disagreed on the last two. Kevin/Boulart took offense, writing:

"More sweeping statements and 'historic' absolutes? I would have thought you'd have learned about that by now. Then again, perhaps not....
...The Gendarmerie and the Douaniers had excellent reputations for integrity and efficiency...
...it merely appears to me that you are making sweeping statements that merely assuages your bias towards the French and Napoleon and your favoritism of the German Hanseatic cities."

So the following post will lay out some of the evidence that I found, which led me to my conclusions.

First, regarding the Jews. Not only in Austria, but also in several northern states and in the Hanse cities, Jews were accorded full citizenship. Frederick William II of Prussian overturned the more restrictive laws of Frederick the Great and in 1782 set up a commission for Jewish emancipation headed by David Friedländer and Daniel Itzig (the treasurer of the Prussian royal court), which recommended a gradual program of Jewish emancipation to be completed by 1800. In the end, it took another ten years, but it was completed under Hardenberg. Napoleon didn’t have anything to do with any of this.

Am I “attacking” Napoleon? No, of course not. Does he deserve credit for Jewish emancipation. Sure, yes he does. Just not everywhere, and he wasn’t the first. It was happening all over western Europe.

Next, regarding corruption. The scholarship on this is extensive, and dates back 100 years. Corruption in the imperial court was documented by Georges Servières in his *L’allemagne français sous Napoléon*, written in 1904. He told the story of the bribes emanatingfrom Josephine’s office, paid for by the blackmail she brought in. Her primary accomplice in this was Reinhard, the minister who really ought to get credit for the first conception of the Continental System, back in the 1790s, as a countermeasure against English blockades. Josephine, via Reinhard or some other messenger, would send for the foreign representative of some small German state, and then intimate that her husband was very displeased with them, but might be mollified by her good offices, assuming a suitable “gift” was forthcoming. I found corroborating evidence of Servières’ narratives when I examined the financial papers of the Hamburg senate from those years.

Corruption in the Illyrian, Dutch, and German ports of the French empire was apparently worse than in France proper. Katherine Aaslestad has recently (2003) written that there was, essentially, no Continental System in force, except by the voluntary measure of not bribing French customs officials. (In addition to Aaslestad, see: Philip Adler, “The Illyrian Provinces of France,” PCORE 20 (1990), 931-938, and: Frank Bundy, The Administration of the Illyrian Provinces of the French Empire, 1809-1813 (New York, 1987). In my own research on Trieste I found that an American consul sent there in 1810 to replace his predecessor found that French administration had merely changed the people to whom the bribes were given; not the bribery itself. In order to get documentation authenticated for trade, French administrators – not Austrian – now needed their palms greased. (Correspondence of the US consuls in Trieste and elsewhere are kept in the National Archives at College Park.

In my research on American and German merchants during the Napoleonic wars, I came across a number of personal communiqués, legal summaries, and even official correspondence that indicated the level of corruption in the French legal and administrative spheres. A Baltimore shipper named John Smith complained that his ships would enter French ports, and then would mysteriously suffer damage, such as a rudder knocked off. When the American captain would complain to police, the police commissioner and judge would ask for a bribe. (These records are in the Maryland Historical Society, Ms.1152.)

The Clifford Brothers of Philadelphia likewise had a ship seized in Brest, allegedly on the charge that she had no official papers and was therefore an “English privateer.” When their agent produced documentation showing that ship’s papers were genuine and in order, the judge required a payment, and suddenly all was well again. (Documentation in the PA Historical Society, Clifford-Pemberton collection.)

An American merchant named Philip Sadtler disembarked in Bremen in 1807 to find his ship and all his personal belongings confiscated. Four separate bribes to French officials were required to get it all back. (MD Hist. Society, Ms.1701)

The Nicholson Brothers, long-standing American businessmen in Bremen, were arrested for “looking like Englishmen.”They were released after paying bribes to the police. (MD Hist. Society, Nicholson papers, Ms2340.1)

The French Douanes set up a base on an island in the Weser river in 1806, from which they launched raids with the assistance of 100 gendarmes also based there, against private homes of the wealthy merchant class, and their offices, hauling back “suspicious” materials to their magazin, which were often then re-sold on the black market. This plundering of the civilian population was extensively covered by Max Schäfer in his “Bremen und die Kontinentalsperre” (Leipzig, 1915).

I have literally hundreds of these case-studies, involving French-controlled ports in Denmark, Germany, France, Italy, and Illyria.

In Frankfurt and Berg in 1810 French officials decreed the burning of any “English goods.” Officially this meant anything that could be construed as having been imported on an English ship: leather, cloth, tobacco, etc. In reality, many of these were simply confiscated from the population by the French authorities, who then resold them on the blackmarket for a profit. This is documented in: Roger Dufraisse, Französiche Zollpolitik, Kontinentalsperre und Kontinentalsystem in Deutschland in der napoleonischen Zeit (Berlin, 1981). Michael Rowe has recently written (From Reich to State, 2003) that “smuggling and fraud developed into a sophisticated industry centered on Cologne, Mainz, and Strasbourg.” (p. 199-201.)

Bourrienne is notorious, of course, for an incredible network of scams, even involving direct trade with England while framing and extorting German merchants on the pretext that they were violating the Continental System. Napoleon made his repay part - part! - of the money he embezzled, but took no other action against him. An account of Bourrienne’s activitites can be found in: Jean Mistler, “Hambourg sous l’occupation française,” Francia I(1973), 451-466.

There’s a lot more to say, but let me sum up my position:

The Napoleonic empire suffered from widespread corruption. It existed at the lowest levels of administration (consuls, police, Douanes), and at the highest (ministers, the Empress, magistrates.)

Was this corruption worse than that of its contemporary large states? Probably ‘worse’ only in the sense that France was a bigger and richer empire and thus everything was on a larger scale.

Is this an “attack” on Napoleon? Don’t be silly. Napoleon is dead. He’s up for grabs for historians, like every other dead person.

I just don’t think Napoleon deserves credit as a reformer of corruption.

(sorry - an error of date: the commission set up by FW2 was in 1792 - not 1782.)

Where is the evidence that finds that Napoleon was corrupt? You specifically stated that the Empire was corrupt from bottom to top, which you have not shown. You have demonstrated examples of corruption but that doesn't mean it was policy nor was it condoned from the government which was either your meaning or intent. 'Official' corruption, that meaning by officials of the government, can be shown for every government in every age. That's what you have done, not that the Empire and Napoleon was corrupt.

Napoleon had a very large problem with Josephine 'dabbling' in fraudulent army contracts and that is old informtion, not new. Further, he stopped the practice.

Again, if the Empire was so corrupt, why did Napoleon institute two independent investigative agencies to ferret out official corruption both in the army and the civilian government? You haven't answered that one. It appears to me that he was determined to be rid of it or at the very least punish those responsible.

Again, you have to follow the accusations of corruption to the end product, which you apparently have not done. How much of the Correspondence have you covered in this respect, or about the Correspondence of Eugene, and Savary's, Fain's, and Marchand's memoirs for example. It looks to me as if you see/find an accusation and take it for its face value, as long as it is anti-French. That is horrible methodology and betrays an inherent bias (such as perhaps arriving at your conclusion and then doing some research to back it up) against your subject.

As for granting Jews full citizenship, as the Prussians didn't do it until 1810 (and Frederick William wasn't the catalyst for that-it was the Reformers), then they are behind the French and Napoleon in that respect. Nor was Napoleon's granting of religious freedom a gradual 'emancipation' but a granting of full rights of citizenship to a people born in France. Your information is incorrect. Frederick had 'presented' the Jews in Prussia with 'considerable financial and economic duties', only for the reason they were Jewish. The Edict Concerning Citizens' Rights of the Jews wasn't made into law until 11 March 1812, so your data and conclusions are wrong.

I duuno. If the Empress herself was into graft, does it matter if Boney himself was? If he was honest and didn't know, he should have. He was smart fella, after all.

During the 1820s and 1830s, when Britain was developing its "modern" police force, one of the reformers' greatest obstacles were popular attitudes against a full-time professional police force, which they associated with France and rampant corruption.

I dunno Boulart. Sam gives you lots of specifics, and your counter is yeah but yeah but yeah but, with little support for your arguments.

Why did N appoint commissions to root out corruption.

It's called "spin-doctoring"

But there is no corruption, so why did he have to appoint commissions? Doh! (And 2 no less!)

Kevin:

If we were talking about the LA Police Department, and I said, "There is a lot of corruption in the LA Police Department," and I then showed you lots of examples of that corruption, your response - mutatis mutandis - is basically:

1) Hey - there are a lot of honest cops.

2) There's a lot of corruption in other police departments.

Well, fine. Neither point, however, disproves the many examples of corruption.

Some (brief) responses to specific things you said:

***Where is the evidence that finds that Napoleon was corrupt?**

If you mean the man himself, I've never said he was. What I've been saying - consistently for three years - is that there was a lot of corruption in the Napoleonic empire, at all levels, and that therefore Napoleon doesn't deserve the reputation as somebody who cleaned up corruption.

**Again, if the Empire was so corrupt, why did Napoleon institute two independent investigative agencies to ferret out official corruption **

I think a more important question is: "Given that there are so many examples of corruption in the Empire, what does that say about the honesty and/or efficacy of those bureaus assigned to root it out?"

**It looks to me as if you see/find an accusation and take it for its face value, as long as it is anti-French. That is horrible methodology**

My methodology, as I explained, has been to search primary sources. I looked at court records, consular reports, personal memoirs, diplomatic and official correspondence, financial records, etc. I also read a couple hundred secondary sources in English, French, and German. In most cases, corroborating evidence is easy to find. If not, then I say so in my book, or I say, "according to so-and-so..."

** and betrays an inherent bias (such as perhaps arriving at your conclusion and then doing some research to back it up) against your subject.**

Actually, I used to be quite an unquestioning admirer of Napoleon. Over the years, as I got more educated in the field, though, I began to qualify that admiration, and finally question it.

But as any professional historian can tell you, "bias" is stupid. Why bother? Napoleon is dead. He won't show up at my door to beat me up, or hire a lawyer to sue me. It's not personal. If you feel personally emotionally attached to your subject - for instance, if you take personal offense whenever somebody says anything critical of him - then you're too emotionally involved to be a good judge of the evidence. In such a case, one should take several steps back.

**As for granting Jews full citizenship, as the Prussians didn't do it until 1810 (and Frederick William wasn't the catalyst for that-it was the Reformers), then they are behind the French and Napoleon in that respect.Nor was Napoleon's granting of religious freedom a gradual 'emancipation' but a granting of full rights of citizenship to a people born in France. Your information is incorrect. Frederick had 'presented' the Jews in Prussia with 'considerable financial and economic duties', only for the reason they were Jewish. The Edict Concerning Citizens' Rights of the Jews wasn't made into law until 11 March 1812, so your data and conclusions are wrong.**

I think you've confused Fred2, FW2, and FW3's policies on this subject. Fred2 was no friend to the Jews, to be sure (although he talked a good talk about it.) FW2, as I said, put together a commission on Jewish emancipation, when Napoleon Bonaparte was still a skinny kid with big dreams. The commission - with FW2's approval - mandated Jewish emancipation by 1800. It was interrupted by the king's death in 1797, stalled until Hardenberg's reforms of 1810, made into law in 1812.

Meanwhile, Jews had been emancipated in the Hanse states, in Austria, and in several north-German duchies, all before the Napoleonic wars. I believe Holland, too, emancipated Jews prior to French occupation, but I'm not 100% sure. I don't know enough about Britain to say, but I believe they were on the same trajectory.

Again, what I said was: "Does [Napoleon] deserve credit for Jewish emancipation. Sure, yes he does. Just not everywhere, and he wasn't the first. It was happening all over western Europe."

PS - I never mentioned Josephine's "dabbling in army contracts." I was talking about her extortion of foreign diplomats. But since you brought it up, Do Tell...

Although I have not presise references at this very present time,I believe that the jewish emancipation began with the French revolution, not with 1st empire: we can considerer that Napoleon was enlighted enough to keep on reforms initiated before him, in 1789 with the declaration of human rights: none will be prosecuted for his religious belief (10th points)

About the corruption,the word is vague enough to be understood in many senses. Every Napoleon "afficionado" knows his famous 1st speech to the army of Italy " I will take you to the most fertiles meadows of the world":doesn't it sounds like a call for plundering? Of course, it is not technically or legally corruption, but morally? Napoleon said about the Légion d'honneur, he himself instituted, that it was a convenient rattle for ruling men: doesn' it appear as a legal way to corrupt men? All the titles and money given to most of his marshalls made them corrupted men, they didn't hesitate to betray him, most of them at least, in 1814, to enjoy their wealth, Massena greed was proverbial. What I try to express in a very clumsy way is that Napoleon exercised his power through bribery more than by ideal and loyalty: he despided too much men to rule them with "positive" civic values.

Well, Sam, as they say round here, you've screwed the pooch again:

19 June 2004:

K: 'Where is the evidence that Napoleon was corrupt?'

S: 'If you mean the man himself, I've never said he was.'

25 December 2003 on NapWars

S: 'Napoleon couldn't be trused to keep any of his agreements...Small wonder everybody else down the chain was corrupt, too.'

Not taken out of context either-interesting words, 'everybody' and 'too.'

Seems like you're contradicting yourself, now, isn't it? Of course, you'll think of an outstandingly clever riposte to counter what is evident. If you've made easy errors like this, what other ones have you done? I've read them as I said before. Sweeping, all encompassing statements just don't cut it.

mweaver:

Yes, Sam surely does. But he doesn't explain why the Douniers established a base on the island, what the raid was for, nor why ships were confiscated, etc. Who was the commander of the Douaniers? That might also explain a lot. That is what I was trying to get at, undoubtedly not very well.

There was undoubtedly a reason for the actions. Also, if they were illegal, were there consequences for any wrongdoing. Labeling a regime 'corrupt' and everybody in it from the bottom to top with bits and pieces of evidence that aren't fully explained isn't good methodology. Also, using German references for French actions isn't exactly non-partisan.

It's the same using the Austrian and Prussian/German staff histories as evidence on their own, which is done from time to time. They are not impartial and at times not accurate. Balance is what is needed and that has not been illustrated. Check other works, such as those by Connelly, or the excellent book on Napoleon's diplomatic service, or the recent one Inside Napoleonic France as well as France Under Napoleon by Bergeron and you get the other side of the picture. Officials when investigated and caught were prosecuted and punished.

What did you expect Napoleon to do about Bourrienne? Have him executed? Then there would be another false accusation of Napoleon being unjust. Imprison him for life? Paying back half is undoubtedly more than was usual to be recovered. Both Bourrienne and Talleyrand were sacked for the same thing-rapacity. There were corrupt officials in the Imperial government-unfortunately all forms of human endeavor have them, including the clergy. What is evident is that Napoleon tried to do something about it and did punish the deserving. However, you have to find out about the crime first, investigate it, and then punish. It should also be remembered that the Imperial government was a government of laws, and law and order had been reestablished by Napoleon in France shortly after the 1799 coup.

Because a few or some are corrupt, all are not. Balance should be the goal, and Sam has failed that test here by the evidence and statements he has given, including his 'misinterpretation' of what I said on Jewish 'emancipation.' In short, he is wrong.

I went back to the NapWars site to see the entire context of that conversation but couldn’t find it on the search feature. It was about whether or not Napoleon could be trusted to keep his diplomatic agreements, though, if I recall right. But I have to wonder what your point is. I mean, how is this your response to the many examples of corruption in the Empire? I’ve given you many examples, and your response is basically: “Look – you once implied that Napoleon was personally corrupt! Ha! Therefore you’re wrong.”

Very well. I shall amend the police department analogy of our conversation to include your more recent objections:

Sam: “There is a lot of corruption in the LA police department. Here are dozens of documented examples, plus references to many other scholars from various countries who have studied the department and come to the same conclusion.”

Kevin: “Your accusations are absurd because:

1) There are a lot of honest cops.
2) There is a lot of corruption in other police departments.
3) A year and a half ago you used different verbiage in reference to the Chief.
4) You obviously hate people from Los Angeles.”

I think any reasonable person would agree that it’s a very simple question: “Was there widespread corruption in Napoleon’s Empire? Yes or No?”

Kevin: ****Labeling a regime 'corrupt' and everybody in it from the bottom to top with bits and pieces of evidence that aren't fully explained isn't good methodology. Also, using German references for French actions isn't exactly non-partisan. ****

As I wrote already: “My methodology, as I explained, has been to search primary sources. I looked at court records, consular reports, personal memoirs, diplomatic and official correspondence, financial records, etc. I also read a couple hundred secondary sources in English, French, and German. In most cases, corroborating evidence is easy to find. If not, then I say so in my book, or I say, "according to so-and-so..."

Since you’re asking for “balance,” you should be pleased to know that I investigated hundreds of French primary sources as well as German and American. I have used secondary sources from French, English, American, and German authors stretching over a period of 100 years. (And a few Dutch and Danish sources, but only in translation.)

Kevin: ****… Because a few or some are corrupt, all are not.” ****

To repeat again from my second post: “The Napoleonic empire suffered from widespread corruption. It existed at the lowest levels of administration (consuls, police, Douanes), and at the highest (ministers, the Empress, magistrates.) Was this corruption worse than that of its contemporary large states? Probably ‘worse' only in the sense that France was a bigger and richer empire and thus everything was on a larger scale.”

*** Balance should be the goal, and Sam has failed that test here by the evidence and statements he has given, including his 'misinterpretation' of what I said on Jewish 'emancipation.' In short, he is wrong ***

To repeat for a third time, I said: "Does [Napoleon] deserve credit for Jewish emancipation. Sure, yes he does. Just not everywhere, and he wasn't the first. It was happening all over western Europe."

What part of that statement is a misinterpretation of what you said?

PS - I would never presume to lecture you on Napoleonic artillery, or to tell you that your methodology was horrible, or that you were biased, etc, etc. That's your field. I don't know much about it.

I do, however, know something about this topic (trade, corruption, the Continental System), and have done primary and secondary source research in depth and detail, from multiple angles in multiple languages.

So do I Sam. I've been studying the period for forty years and have been educated in it in one of the best history departments in the country, not to mention by an authority on the period for over ten.

Sam:

If you want to swing at a pitch in the dirt thats okay with me. But there's no upside here for you I can see...

Mark: I hear you.

But I just wanted to lay out my case, with evidence and references, so that nobody could (accurately) accuse me of "vague, sweeping generalizations" or the like. There is such a huge body of historical scholarship on this subject that I'm in pretty good company.

Sam

How does anecdotal evidence confirm or refute the stated point that "Napoleon did not reduce corruption"? If the corruption was at an arbitrary level of 100, and it was reduced to 50, wouldn't you still see signs of corruption?

The point you are making is that there was corruption in the Napoleonic empire, therefore Napoleon did not reduce it. The conclusions are not supported by evidence of corruption. Evidence of no reduction, or an increase would be interesting, although tough to show. The evidence of the commissions and agencies to remove corruption is more compelling.

It would be the same as concluding that all History Professors are inept because I can find evidence of some that are inept.

KAM

KAM sez: "The point you are making is that there was corruption in the Napoleonic empire, therefore Napoleon did not reduce it. The conclusions are not supported by evidence of corruption. Evidence of no reduction, or an increase would be interesting, although tough to show. The evidence of the commissions and agencies to remove corruption is more compelling."

Well, what I said was:

"The Napoleonic empire suffered from widespread corruption. It existed at the lowest levels of administration (consuls, police, Douanes), and at the highest (ministers, the Empress, magistrates.)

Was this corruption worse than that of its contemporary large states? Probably ‘worse' only in the sense that France was a bigger and richer empire and thus everything was on a larger scale.

...I just don't think Napoleon deserves credit as a reformer of corruption."

Basically, I arrived at my conclusion this way:

1) There was corruption all over Europe.
2) There was corruption in France before Napoleon, during Napoleon, and after Napoleon was gone.
3) There was corruption in the areas Napoleon conquered and annexed, before he conquered them, and after he conquered them.
4) There are many specific examples of corruption in Napoleon's regime, including that practiced at very high levels that would have been unique to Napoleon (i.e., that did not have a counterpart in the previous regime). Examples would be the Empress, specific ministers like Reinhard or Talleyrand, governors and high-level administrators like Bourrienne, and of course the Marshals.
5) The corruption at the lower levels occurred in all regimes, including Napoleon's, and I have lots of specific examples of it occurring during Napoleon's regime.
6) This corruption occurred despite the existence of bureaus allegedly charged with its prevention.

Therefore, I think I can safely say that the Napoleonic Empire had a widespread problem with corruption and Napoleon does not deserve a reputation as somebody who cleaned house and rooted out corruption.

PS - If you had evidence of widespread ineptitude in the History faculty of College X - if you had multiple examples confirmed by multiple witnesses and documented with paper trails showing that there were a lot of inept History professors there...

...then you could safely say that "College X has a problem with a lot of inept History professors."

And if the President of College X was being praised as somebody who had recruited and developed a brilliant History faculty - much better than those bumblers at College Y - you could certainly point out that that praise was ill-placed, based on the multiple examples of ineptitude that you had documented.

Don't you agree?

But if a new president of College X was to take over and remove exactly 50 percent of the inept professors, two conditions would exist simultaneously:

1. Inept history professors would exist, and a paper trail would document same.

2.

Woops

2. The new president had reduced the quantity of ineptness.

Then I could choose the data I wanted to support my conclusion. It is a common research technique.

I don't care one way or another how Napoleon is presented. I am interested in the logic.

KAM

KAM

SAm said

"Skannian had praised Napoleon for his legal, economic, and religious reforms, and for emancipating the Jews and for reducing corruption. I agreed on the first three, disagreed on the last two."

Therefore you have said that Napoleon did not reduce corruption.

KAM

Who is Boulart/Kevin? I'm not used to seeing such aggressive and hostile comments on TMP or other discussion forums?

Mark R

Marcus:

Boulart is reputed to be Kevin Kiley and was banned here at TMP once. He is very aggressive here and elsewhere.

I say "reputed" only because Boulart has never confirmed it.

I just try to ignore him and hope he'll go away....

KAM: I take your point, but there are limits to the statistical analysis of corruption. Even so, researching it is not so different from researching anything else. For what it’s worth, this was my methodology:

In some instances, such as a judge taking bribes, there is not going to be a document from the judge himself, in which he sums up all the bribes he took in this year, compared to the bribes he took last year. What I can do, though, is look at the various parties involved, and the outcome or lack of outcome. For instance: an American schooner named “Cora” is impounded at La Rochelle. The captain writes to the owner/shipper in New York, telling him what has happened (record 1). The captain then goes to the US consul in La Rochelle and lodges a formal complaint (record 2). The consul is obligated to represent the American defendant, or to find a lawyer for him (record 3). Oddly, though, there is no trial, and suddenly all is well. The police have no record of the reason for the arrest. Finally, a European agent for the shipper sends him a bill (record 4), for the cost of the bribe to the judge. Sometimes it's even notarized by the consul.

This sort of thing pops up a lot. Consuls were basically record-keepers. In the case of the Americans (and most western countries), they sent bi-annual summaries to their foreign ministries, which were supposed to be a record of all transactions. (Of course, some consuls were corrupt, too.) They also sent a steady stream of paperwork back to their governments, because consuls were also basically low-level spies. Anyway, in their summaries, they had to list every single ship that dropped anchor at that harbor, the name of the captain, what the vessel was carrying, what happened to said cargo (if sold, then where and for how much), and where the ship left for (i.e., where its papers authorized it to go. If it didn’t actually go there, you can probably figure that out either from the ship’s records or from the consular report at another port.)

If you have consuls from all over the Napoleonic empire all writing back to the Secretary of State, all complaining about the same kinds of problems, you know something is going on. If you don’t see these kinds of complaints in Year X, but start to see them in Year Y, and they become epidemic by Year Z, then you know there’s a trend.

That’s just one example: the example of ships and consuls. When dealing with something like bribery to a foreign official, you often have to rely on after-the-fact revelations. For instance, it wasn’t until 1853 that the identity and activities of a British spy in Hamburg were revealed, because in that year the British “Bullion Reports” were de-classified (“de-classified” is the wrong term, but they were made available to researchers.) In those treasury documents, historians realized that large sums of money were going to Continental Europe, through the hands of certain mysterious “Mister X” or “Mister H” and then vanishing in certain places on certain dates. By linking up what they already knew about this spy or that agent from the anecdotal evidence, correspondence, and spending records of French officials, they discovered a remarkable money trail from Britain to several of Napoleon’s ministers.

Anyway, I realize that I haven’t answered your main objection, in which you’re essentially asking me for a statistical analysis. But if I can’t do that, I can at least assure you that I’m not relying on unverified anecdotes.

Sam

In the contrary. As you state there is an increase in the number of complaints - this is new info, and much more meaningful.

Thanks

KAM

'Kevin/Boulart took offense.'

Sam,
I disagreed. Disagreement isn't analogous to 'attack' even though you and a few others seem to think that way. Too bad.

The complete citation reads:

Kevin/Boulart took offense, writing:

"More sweeping statements and 'historic' absolutes? I would have thought you'd have learned about that by now. Then again, perhaps not.... ...The Gendarmerie and the Douaniers had excellent reputations for integrity and efficiency... ...it merely appears to me that you are making sweeping statements that merely assuages your bias towards the French and Napoleon and your favoritism of the German Hanseatic cities."

I will leave it to others to judge what sentiments are expressed in the tone and content of your responses.

Kevin (Boulart) Kiley wrote:

"Disagreement isn't analogous to 'attack' even though you and a few others seem to think that way. Too bad."

You're right. Disagreement is not analogous to attack. However, your statements are attacks, not merely disagreements. You level accusations of bias among other things. Debating issues is one thing, going off on a personal attack is quite another.

Sincerely,

John "The Pot Calling the Kettle Black" Holly

John,

Although it is undoubtedly futile to answer your 'interesting' statement, but stating or mentioning bias that a poster/author/writer/historian has is not a personal attack. It's a comment on the slant he is 'evidently' presenting in his statements or writings. Everyone undoubtedly has a 'bias.' I admire Napoleon and the Grande Armee, but I also attempt to give an honest picture warts and all. Sometimes that either doesn't happen or it is left out.
I don't agree with Sam's assessment and the bias statement was based on seeing his postings for the last three years or so. If you cannot accept that, then that's your definite problem. Sam's assessment, with which I still disagree, is 'sweeping' and is something he cannot prove. He's entitled to his opinion, and I have no doubt he's read many accounts to support his theory. However, I don't think he has gone the extra mile to find the logical conclusion, if any, to his theory. He's not the only one who hasn't done this, and probably all of us are guilty of it to a degree, as all have our favorites.
I said nothing about Sam personally-what I talked about and disagree with are his methodology and conclusions based on what I think is incomplete evidence. In short, he has started his homework and hasn't finished it yet.

"However, I don't think he has gone the extra mile to find the logical conclusion, if any, to his theory."

And you base this on discussion forums rather than articles, etc.? Certainly we can agree that discussion forums leave much to be desired when it comes to full discussions of various topics. So, basing an opinion on what is written in the limited environment of a discussion forum is not fair. Suggesting that he has not finished his homework, without understanding the extent of his research, is also unfair.

John

I think that it's axiomatic that history is never really "finished." Nobody ever gets the final word, no matter how impressive or comprehensive their research. Reviewers generally judge the work on three criteria:

1) Has the author demonstrated an understanding of what other authors have said about this and related topics over the years?

2) Does the research represent a sound and comprehensive answer to whatever questions the author raises at the outset?

3) Does the book do what it sets out to do?

When an author completes a scholarly monograph, and a publisher is interested, the publisher then farms the manuscript out to various experts it has on a consultative basis. In my case, they sent part of the book off to this historian, part to that one, the whole thing to this other historian, and so on. Then they passed on the three critiques to me, and asked me to make revisions. (This is a pretty normal procedure.) In two cases, for instance, they wanted more documentation of such-and-such. In another case, they wanted me to place Subject X in the context of what's been written in Field Y. One guy challenged my figures on US export data for the 1790s, and wanted me to re-calculate.

All of this editing and fact-checking takes the better part of a year.

I'm sharing this simply because I think it illustrates the degree to which historical scholarship is examined prior to getting published by a major publisher.

Then, of course, once it comes out, the book gets reviewed in a number of places. I've tracked down six reviews thus far, and I've been pleased with five of them. (oh well.) But the reviewers are always scholars in the same or related fields. For instance, Simone Wegge reviewed me for the Journal of Economic History. (Her expertise is in the history of trade policy.) Georg Fertig reviewed me for the Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte. (He is an expert on the North Atlantic economy in the 18th century.) And so on.

So - all this to say that a lot of people get to decide whether or not I've "done my homework," and unlike Kevin, they've actually read my work.

As I have already said, Sam, I haven't read your book. It isn't a subject I'm that interested in. I'm also very familiar with the historical review process, having been somewhat involved with it myself.

The point is, from your postings on this subject on two forums, you haven't made the case for the Napoleonic Empire being 'corrupt from bottom to top.'

*** The point is, from your postings on this subject on two forums, you haven't made the case for the Napoleonic Empire being 'corrupt from bottom to top. ***

Well, I've definitely made the case. Whether you accept my conclusions or not, that's a different matter.

The prosecution rests.

Interesting conclusion. There is a pretty good book by a history professor at Eastern Carolina University that lauded his own book on Cowpens as the best yet done a few years back. Seems to me there are enough credible authorities on the period that disagree with you, such as John Elting and Owen Connelly (and he is no admirer of Napoleon) to dampen your enthusiasm for your own work. Every writer loves his own work-an old truism I was once reminded of by an outstanding officer I once worked for.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back.

'The prosecution rests.' Isn't that what the prosecution said after the OJ trial-a trial they should have won but blew it?

Sigh.

I'm just not going to get down there with you, Kevin.

I think at this point, we should invite others to read this thread from the beginning, and come to their own conclusions.

Isn't that the point of the exercise?

Sam never said everyone was corrupt, he said that there was widespread corruption, from the highest levels to the lowest and that Napoleon should not be credited with stopping it, as it didn't stop. It's like giving the UN credit for stopping things because they passed a resolution on the subject.

Following up on what KAM said:

1. Did Napoleon (in his reign) reduce corruption?
Yes or No?

2. Did corruption increase or decrease?

The answer to both questions is probably "Both."

As I said to KAM, a statistical analysis is virtually impossible. However, it is possible to document trends by following legal, economic, and diplomatic paper trails.

So, for instance, we might be able to find evidence that Napoleon did away with certain kinds of corruption that existed under the Directory. (It stands to reason that he did, given that new people came to power.)

But meanwhile, other sorts of corruption increased, because unlike the Directory, Napoleonic France now exercised control over a much greater area and number of people, not to mention the spoils of plunder and the opportunities for cheating that were created by the Continental System.

For instance: there was a spike in the number of complaints about French officials extorting merchants and shippers in the late 1790s, then a decline. Then another spike in 1800, then a decline with the peace of Amiens. Then a massive spike in 1804, which reached epidemic proportions by 1810.

Even if Napoleon had been a sort of super-vigilant crusader against corruption, there was no way he could have broken the corruption that his own policies had made inevitable. For instance: Napoleon massively expanded conscription in the last three years of his reign. That means a lot of soldiers need shoes, and thus the empire needs a lot of leather. There was no way for that leather demand to be supplied, except by allowing smuggling with Great Britain. So Napoleon turned a blind eye to a lot of cheating on the very system that he (or his subordinates) could also use to extort and coerce. Are you caught smuggling for your own benefit, without cutting the local French authorities in on the deal? Well, then you're in trouble, and you'll have to bribe your way out of it. But if you're an officially-sanctioned cheater, then that's different.

To me, that's a pretty corrupt system. Did things like that happen before Napoleon came to power? Yes. Did their incidence increase after he came to power? Yes.

Another example: Napoleon signed a free trade agreement with the USA in 1800. But he never prosecuted French privateers who preyed upon US shipping, even when the blatantly Francophile Jefferson and Madison both implored him to do so. Later in the wars, Napoleon promised the US that would issue "permis américains" to allow American ships to enter French harbors. But the French officials in those harbors invented various fees that the shippers had to pay, to avoid being boarded, impounded, and confiscated. (A lot of American ships were labeled "English" and confiscated.) In Brest and Rotterdam the French authorities sold and re-sold the permis, with the money going privately to them each time.

That's an example of corruption that did not exist prior to Napoleon.

Up to now, I've only been talking about the civilian sector. There is a whole universe of corruption involving Marshals and Generals. I recall that Joseph Bonaparte (who was a fine one to talk!) even complained to Napoleon that he could not win over the Spanish bourgeoisie to his cause because the French commanders had so thoroughly plundered and extorted them, that they were hostile to any cooperation with the French.

So again, as I told KAM, if you're looking for a comprehensive statistical analysis of incidents of corruption, then there's just no way anybody can do that. But there are ways to document the kinds of corruption that occur, and document - roughly - their frequency.

I feel like I'm repeating myself over and over again, but I suppose I ought to restate - one more time - the thesis I laid out at the very beginning:

"The Napoleonic empire suffered from widespread corruption. It existed at the lowest levels of administration (consuls, police, Douanes), and at the highest (ministers, the Empress, magistrates.)

Was this corruption worse than that of its contemporary large states? Probably ‘worse' only in the sense that France was a bigger and richer empire and thus everything was on a larger scale. ...I just don't think Napoleon deserves credit as a reformer of corruption."

All right. I feel that I've given a lot of specific examples, with documentary evidence. I am not aware of any of those cases being specifically refuted by Kevin; only that he doesn't like me, or my findings.

I've cited a number of historians who have written on this, and there are plenty more. I've given specific quotes from them with references.

Kevin claims only vaguely that John Elting and Owen Connelly disagree. Unless he's referring to a different Elting book than the two I have, I'm not sure what Elting ever wrote on this subject. Ditto for Connelly, but just to be sure, I asked him, and I'll pass along what he has to say when I hear back from him.

But in the meantime, I've repeated myself pretty extensively, so I don't want to keep doing so. The prosecution really does rest.

Napoleon emancipated Jews - but the Revolutionaries had already done this by proclaiming the equiality of all. The issue only matters because of the Second World War - consider perhaps for more illumination, N's 3 changes on his position on slavery. Joseph II had even ennobled Jews as early as 1789, having lifted almost all restrictions in 1781, but then maybe not much more could be expected as the Jews of Prague had welcomed Frederick's advance in 1756.
As for N not keeping to agreements - start with the Treaty of Luneville and then consider who declared a partial state bankruptcy in 1800 after the Marengo campaign by not paying army contractors. The best perhaps of all is hte two messengers who left Marengo - the first carried news that the battle was lost with a messgae to Joseph and others to buy shares and two days later up shows another with news of the victory. I think that Ivan Boesky and more recently a few Wall Street folk have been convicted of assorted similar offences.

Two honest questions:

How corrupt were the French Naval dockyards during the period? I ask this because the shocking abuses in HBM's Royal Navy make my head spin and I was wondering if it was as bad in the French service.

Why did Napoleon reestablish slavery and deny rights to free blacks? I've read reasoned arguments that it was a)a scheme to strengthen France's weakened position in her overseas colonies or b)caving to influence of plantation owners (and didn't Josephine have a hand in it?).

This is not a troll, and I hope we can all play nicely.

Simple on the second one - N pandered to those with money. The1799 coup was backed by money and he needed cash to keep it all going. When his chums at the BoF got into trouble, he sent them a huge subsidy. The slaves were no different from the serfs of northern Italy - having declared he would liberate them, N left the feudal system there to keep France's breadbasket going.

** "How corrupt were the French Naval dockyards during the period?" **

I Don't know.

**"Why did Napoleon reestablish slavery and deny rights to free blacks?" **

The whole Haiti and slavery issue seems like a good discussion topic, so maybe we should create a new thread for it?

Sam,
Yes you need a break as you don't get the point of the exercise.
You have provided anecdotal evidence of corruption, but you haven't compared it to anything prior to it in order to back up your thesis of the Imperial government being corrupt 'from bottom to top.'
There is corruption in any human endeavor because there are always going to be, unfortunately dishonest and corrupt individuals. I've seen them in my career in the service and I've seen them caught. That doesn't mean the service is corrupt.
You haven't demonstrated that the Imperial government was corrupt, only that certain individuals were. Further, you apparently haven't done any work into seeing what happened to those dishonest public servants (if your information is accurate in the first place)-if they got away, if they got caught, if they were investigated. You pooh-poohed one that was punished, Bourrienne, as if it didn't matter. I'd say paying back one million francs was a pretty stiff punishment, unless you demand imprisonment or execution instead.
Therefore, your thesis isn't valid as it hasn't been completed as stated. You need to look at the Revolutionary governments and how badly they handled the same-type issues, and if there was improvement or not under the Consulate and Empire. Then, because you concentrate in the Hanseatic ports in northwest Germany, you need to find out how 'business' was done before the advent of the French. You also have to look into the intelligence/counterintelligence aspect regarding smuggling and why certain operations were conducted. That's only for a start.

You have also contradicted yourself, first saying Napoleon was corrupt, and then denying you said it.

You really have your work cut out for you if you intend to have a credible thesis, which you don't as of this time.

Now, you can rest.

Kevin, given that you admit you've never read any of my work, how do you know I haven't done any of that?

You ferociously criticize Dave Hollins for critiquing authors whose work he hasn't read entirely. Aren't you doing precisely the same thing?

No, I'm not.

I'm criticizing what you have said on two forums for three years. Read what you've read, it isn't short, and then come back and tell me you've given both sides and your methodology is complete. From what you have said, it isn't. I have said nothing about your book, merely commenting on some of the lengthy postings that you've made and the sweeping statements that you've used as conclusions.

If you don't recall, take the time and go back through NapWars and find your stuff. It isn't that hard, I've done it, though it is time consuming.

Again, I'm not judging your book, except by association in that the material offered as evidence here and on NapWars was also included in your book-never said I did (though I did say I'll read it, and therefore probably have to buy it). I'm merely commenting, and disagreeing with what you have said on the forums.

If you took my criticism as being about your book, I apologize for not making myself more clear-that was not my intent. I also made it quite plain that I hadn't read your book.

You certainly haven't given both sides of the issue, and your conclusion is incorrect based on what you have said. If you can provide something more concrete and demonstrate that you have done as I have mentioned, then perhaps proving that the Imperial government was indeed 'corrupt from bottom to top' then I have no problem changing my mind. Until then, the ball is in your court. Merely stating that you've done such-and-such research, and have written a book, etc., doens't 'prove' anything. Though I do respect you writing a book. It isn't an easy task and is quite expensive to do and complete.

And remember, you've already made a large error by not checking what you said on NapWars regarding Napoleon being corrupt-not good.

Kevin, you keep acting as if I'm the only historian who's ever come to this conclusion. But I'm more like the 100th. This is hardly news. As I stated above, you could read any number of older or newer works by English, American, French, or German scholars on this subject: Roger Dufraisse, Michael Rowe, Max Schäffer, Katherine Aaslestad, Jean Mistler, Philip Adler, Frank Bundy...

Don't just take my word for it. (Not that I'm afraid you would.)