"Napoleon the Jacobin?" Topic

Having taken a look at the idea that Napoleon may or may not have been a Jacobin, the following is offered for discussion:

From Corelli Barnett's Bonaparte:

Page 11: ‘…in the opinion of Lieutenant-Colonel Buonoparte, who was a fervent Jacobin and hater of religion.'-no source.

Page 14: ‘…an obscure provincial Jacobin'-no source.

Page 26: ‘The Royalist officers of the regiment moreover offered only a cool welcome back to their notoriously Jacobin confrere.'-no source.

Page 28: ‘His second career as a Jacobin politician in Corsica was at an end.'-no source.

Page 89: ‘Reverting to type as Jacobin mob politician…' regarding the d'Enghien incident.-no source.

As noted, none of these are sourced and appear to be nothing more than opinion.

From Martyn Lyons'Napoleon Bonaparte and the Legacy of the French Revolution (from Chapter 2, entitled 'Bonaparte the Jacobin),11-14:

'Bonaparte had now allied himself closely with local Javobins who included the Concentionnel Saliceti and also Augustin Robespierre, younger brother of Maximilien.'-12.

'These Jacobin associations were omitted in later versions of the Napoleonic myth. Bonaparte was subsequently represented as a young romantic hero, but his political connections during the Jacobin period were carefully obscured. Any association with Robespierre could discredit him-it led in fact to his brief arrest in the fort of Antibes after the Robespierrists were overthrown on 9 thermidor Year 2.'-13.

'Bonaparte played a contributing role to the defeat of the insurrection which was limited to the residential areas of the right bank…It was here, in the bourgeois section of Paris, that support for constitutional royalism was strongest, and where the anti-Jacobin street gangs, known as the jeunesse doree, had their bases. The government's artillery successfully beat off attacks from the dissident sections. Bonaparte's personal role in the affair has often been exaggerated. Barras, in charge of the Convention's forces, welcomed Bonaparte's assistance, but Bonaparte was never in command or even second-in-command of them. The cliché that Bonaparte dispersed royalists with the legendary 'whiff of grapeshot' is also misleading. There was bloody fighting around the rue St. Honore and the church of St. Roch, and there were hundreds of casualties on both sides.'-13-14.

None of the above identify Napoleon as a Jacobin. He was, however, a supporter of the successive revolutionary governments as were all of the army officers who stayed to fight and not emigrate. Some officers refused promotion during the Terror so as not to be put into the predicament of being condemned by the revolutionary Representatives on Mission and sent to the guillotine. Too many of the generals during the period were executed, some just for losing a battle and then being denounced.

Neither of the above two references name Napoleon as a Jacobin or demonstrate that he was.

Vincent Cronin in his biography does not identify Napoleon as a Jacobin, though on page 56 he states that 'He was one of the first to join the Society of Friends of the Constitution, a group of 200 Valence patriots, and he became secretary. On 3 July 1791 he played a leading role in a ceremony at which twenty-three popular societies of Isere, Drome and Ardeche solemnly condemded the King's attempted flight to Belgium. Three days later he swore the oath demanded of all officers, 'to die rather than allow a foreign power to invade French soil.' On 14 July he swore an oath of loyalty to the new Constitution and, at a banquet the same evening, proposed a toast to the patriots of Auxonne.' These actions were undertaken by Napoleon in defense of the new Constitution and do not demonstrate that Napoleon was a Jacobin, rather that he was a loyal army officer prepared to defend his country.

In Alan Forest's Napoleon he quotes Napoleon as believing the Jacobins 'were 'madmen who are lacking in common sense.''-49.

Forest further states on page 48 that 'With the passage of tme, however, his [Napoleon's] letters suggest a growing disquiet at the violence and extremism of some elements of the population, in particular the Jacobins and the Paris crowd.'

And, on page 38, Forest states that Napoleon 'had also developed a suspicion of established elites and a scorn for their prudence that led him to praise men of action like Frederick the Great, to identify with the new revolutionary regime after 1789, and to hitch his star to the Jacobin cause. This he would do most explicitly in 1793, in Souper de Beaucaire, a play he published about the political friction that had developed in the South, in which he did nothing to conceal his republican sympathies. But it would be rash to go further, or to sugget that he was in any way a committed Jacobin. There is no evidence that he joined any political club, or declared his specific affiliations, during the republican moment of 1792-1794.'

So, then, it appears that Napoleon was a republican in sentiment, pro-constitution, anti-royalist, but not a Jacobin.

As to the 'whiff of grapeshot' comment by Lyons, it would appear that Cronin disagrees with the amount of involvement of Napoleon in suppressing the revolt. From Cronin, pages 85-86:

'To Napoleon the issue presented itself in clear terms. Barras stood for the Convention, the Convention for the Constitution, and the Constitution for the principles of the Revolution. On the other side were royalists and anarchists, men who defied a Constitution freely voted for by an overwhelming majority of Frenchmen. He disliked civil strife and tried to avoid it. But this was different: this was a clear case of saving the endangered Revolution…'

''Where are the guns?' was Napoleon's first question. At the plain of Sablons, he was told, six miles away, but it would be too late to get them-the rebels had already sent a column. Napoleon called Murat, a dashing young cavalry officer of proved loyalty…'Take 200 horsemen, gallop to the plain of Sablons, bring back the forty guns you find there, and ammunition. Use your sabers if you have to, but get the guns.''

'At six in the morning Napoleon had his forty guns: Murat reached them minutes before the rebels. His task was to defend the seat of government-the Tuileries-from attacks expected to come from the north. The rebels numbered 30,000, the Government 5,000 regular troops, plus 3,000 militiamen. So everything depended on the guns. Napoleon took eitht of htem and disposed them carefully north of the Tuileries. Two 8-pounders he positioned at the end of Rue Neuve Saint-Roch, pointing up the street towards the church of Saint-Roch. Loading these guns with case-shot, Napoleon took up his post beside them. He was on foot, Barras on horseback.'

'All morning Napoleon waited for an attack which did not come. Light rain began to fall. Then came the sound of drums, shouts and musket-fire. At three in the afternoon the rebels attacked. Muskets blazing, bayonets fixed, they broke through the barricades erected by Barras to protect the Rue Saint-Honore. Government troops fied on them…For an hour the battle swayed, then the rebels broke through by force of numbers. They swept up the Rue Saint-Honore into the Rue Neuve Saint-roch, and past the church. Barras gave the order to fire.'

'Napoleon's two 8-pounders blazed. Accurately aimed, their case-shot blasted into the rebels, round after round, some of it cutting into the stone of the church façade. Men fell, but more came on. Napoleon kept on firing. The rebels fell back and tried other routes, only to be met by case-shot from Napoleon's six other guns. The whole action lasted only a few minutes. Then the rebels began to retreat towards the Place Vendome and Palais Royal, pursued by 1,000 government troops. Half an hour later, with losses of 200 killed or wounded on each side, the rebellion was over.'

Seems to me that Cronin was just a little more thorough than Lyons on this subject.

B

Of course he wasn't!

Oh, wait…

I thought you wrote "Jacobite"…

Sorry.

Pray continue!

Reading Brumaire, through various sources, I certainly don't get the impression that Nappy was a "Jacobin by name", but he certainly did his best to woo that end of the spectrum through Jourdan and his Five Cent's (and to a much lesser extent, Bernadotte).

IF he was, he was of the agnostic variety, kept his mouth shut and did what he thought best.

Page 11: ‘…in the opinion of Lieutenant-Colonel Buonoparte, who was a fervent Jacobin and hater of religion.'-no source.

Page 14: ‘…an obscure provincial Jacobin'-no source.

In my copy, in the 'Biographical References and Notes', Barnett writes: 'This account is based on Frederic Masson's 'Napoleon Inconnu: Papiers Inedites…pp357-84' and Arthur Chuquet's 'La Jeunesse de Napoleon' 3 Vols, II La Revolution pp268-94

Regards

Page 26: ‘The Royalist officers of the regiment moreover offered only a cool welcome back to their notoriously Jacobin confrere.'-no source.

Page 28: ‘His second career as a Jacobin politician in Corsica was at an end.'-no source.

And the same sources for these two, it seems.

Regards

They are not sourced in my copy, which was published in 1978.

B

I have the 1997 reprint. It has extensive notes and a very large select bibliography.

Regards

It has been suggested that what Napoleon admired about the Jacobins was not the detail of their ideology (if such a thing can be simply defined), or the extreme policies of Terror, deism, etc. etc. so closely associated with Robespierre, but the strong centralised government that the Jacobins established in the capital to deal successfully with the crisis of 1793-94. This interpretation might seem to be supported by the fact that, as First Consul and then Emperor, Napoleon certainly ruled in a similarly centralised, authoritarian fashion.

But it should not be forgotten that Napoleon did personally fall under suspicion of Jacobinism after the Thermidorian reaction, which resulted in his arrest for a fortnight or so thereafter. His personal contacts with Robespierre's brother Augustin cannot have helped in this regard.

Additionally, it should be remembered that is not unknown for individuals to shift their ideological stance as circumstances or the political climate change. Whatever romantic political sympathies Napoleon may briefly have espoused as young officer were not necessarily immutable. As he himself later famously boasted, "I had been nourished by reflecting on liberty, but I thrust it aside when it obstructed my path!"

More importantly, Napoleon was nothing if not an opportunist. Writing to his brother during the emergency of 1793-94 he judged that, "Since one must choose sides, one might as well choose the side that is victorious, the side which devastates, loots, and burns. Considering the alternative, it is better to eat than be eaten." We should remember that he was originally a passionate Corsican nationalist until Paoli sent him packing back to France. He then seems to have harboured pretensions of personal aggrandisement in Italy in 1796-97 (where he was said to have established a quasi-monarchical 'court'), and then to have dreamed of establishing a personal empire in the East, turban on his head and newly penned Qu'ran in his hand (until the Egyptian adventure turned sour). In the event, of course, it was in France and then Europe more widely that he gave full vent to his ambition. In short, Napoleon was nothing if not a gigantic opportunist!

The 1978 edition has only five pages of notes and about 65 entries in the select bibliography.

In short, it isn't well-sourced.

Interestingly, Napoleon's Correspondence isn't listed.

B

Napoleon's Correspondance is sourced extensively in this edition. It isn't listed in the select bibliography for this reason, one presumes.

Regards

Napoleon was arrested because of his friendship with Augustin Robespierre, not because of his political views, which were non-ideological.

B

Napoleonics is not my bag but I am hoping to learn something about Napoleon from this thread (and the other one, of course). I have hope, I say, I have hope.

It appears to be a contentious issue.

Blues 4

An oblique observation as to Napoleon's supposed Jacobinism:

After Waterloo"…he had had quite enough of self-praise & mocking the French who had after all gone down fighting, with the utmost gallantry- gibes that came from those who had nothing to do with the war."

Written by Patrick O'Brian & put in the mouth of Aubrey, it says much about blows beneath the belt.

Well Brechtel198, you yourself stated that Buonaparte was a member of the Jacobin Club of Valence, quoting Cronin. He published Jacobin pamphlets, he expressed Jacobin views, he was an associate of Augustin Robespierre, as you've acknowledged, and Saliceti, another leading Jacobin in the area. If this evidence means that he wasn't necessarily a Jacobin, then neither was Maximilien Robespierre either, or Couthon, or Desmoulins, or Freron.

Rather than condemning Barnett for lacking refrences and sources, I would suggest that you obtain a 1997 edition, where the references are given.
Finally it is Professor Alan Forrest. If you can give your Col.Elting his proper title, and spell his name right you can do the same for others, I'd have thought.

I think what the "Jacobin" believed and what they attempted to accomplish, compared to what Napoleon did in the same venue.

The 'enlightenment' view of an ordered, rational world was one strong belief, hence the faux-religion of 'the Goddess of Reason.' Some of the policies/views that Napoleon continued in his reign.

1. Like the Jacobins, everywhere in Europe the French conquered, the same administrative organizations instituted in France by the Jacobins, was applied.
2. Like the Jacobins, Jews and minorites were 'freed' and granted an equal place as 'citizens'.
3. The Freedom, Equality and Faternity preached by the Jacobins was preached to all the new lands conquered by the French, and can be seen in Napoleon's bulletins.
4. The power of reason and the self-development of man was a strong believe in both the Jacobins and Napoleon… A reason for the development of his Code Napoleon, one reason he crowned himself Emperor instead of the Pope.

I could go on. Napoleon was not a follower, so to call him a "Jacobin" or follower of that group is not meaningful. That he held *some* of their strongest beliefs, all elements of the Enlightenment and carried on a number of institutions, policies and practices installed first by the Jacobins in 1792-1794 I think speaks for itself.

The only problem with your logic here is that Napoleon completely remade France, reestablished institutions that the Jacobins had abolished, such as the Church, and was not a radical or a fanatic and didn't resort to terror to rule, and he governed by the rule of law-the Jacobins did not.

B

"The only problem with your logic here is that Napoleon completely remade France, reestablished institutions that the Jacobins had abolished, such as the Church…"

Where do you get the idea from that the Jacobins abolished the church? To use your own criteria and standards, please give us some evidence. If you look, I think that you'll find that the Church continued to exist, but under government control, with the priests acting, effectively, as civil servants paid by the state, having taken an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. Remade France? Reestablished institutions? Like what? He established the Prefecture, imposing them as his appointees in the Departements that the Revolutionary Governments had already set up in place of the old provinces. I suppose one could argue that he reestablished the monarchy, but I'd welcome more detail as to what else he reestablished or remade.

"and was not a radical or a fanatic"

There you go confusing radical and fanatic again. As a member of the Jacobins he was clearly at the radical end of politics. His pamphlets, such as the Souper de Beaucaire, which you studiously ignore, are classic radical Jacobin tracts.

"and didn't resort to terror to rule, and he governed by the rule of law-the Jacobins did not."

Whether he resorted to terror or not is arguable. He did have an extra-legal secret police, he did use terror as a deliberate policy, in Italy and Spain, for example, and did carry out illegal, or extra-legal executions; of Enghien, for example. On the other hand, although the Jacobins used terror, they did so within the law, having carried out the legislation, such as the Law of Suspects, beforehand. Whether you agree with the laws they passed, or not, they acted within the law, and governed by rule of law.

"he governed by the rule of law"

Could you please direct me to the relevant passages in the Code Napoleon which empower the state to arrest people, hold them without trial, and in some cases execute them, if they are deemed to be voicing criticism of the government?

Whereas:

1) Since such arrests happened many times across the Empire (and were carried out by French agents and military in French-occupied lands and satellite states), in many cases resulting in executions, and often not involving trials, and

2) Since, as you say, Napoleon governed by the rule of law…

Then surely there must be laws allowing for those arrests, holding people without trial, and/or executing them.

Thank you in advance for providing the precise citations in the Code Napoleon.

- -

PS – The Napoleonic Penal Code of 1810 specifically guarantees Habeas Corpus, and even goes so far as to say that persons who arrest or hold someone who did not break the written law, will be punished (Sec V, #341).

So what are we to make of those arrests, detentions, people arrested abroad and transported back to France, sent to galleys, executed without trial, etc… for being critical of the regime, or for publishing or saying things critical of the regime, or praising the old regime, etc, etc?

One more point.

It goes without saying that Napoleon didn't govern "according to the rule of law" in any modern sense of that word, as in: being bound by the law, or restricted by it, in the way that an American president or a British prime minister was.

Like any autocrat, Napoleon was the law.

Can anybody give any example – anything – of Napoleon wanting to do something, but being prevented from doing so, by some law?

Can anybody even give any example of Napoleon submitting a law to his Senate for approval, and them voting against it?

I can't think of a single example of either, but I'd be happy to be corrected.

On the other hand, we can easily make a list of things Napoleon did, that were at odds with his own Code Napoleon, whether that involves seizure of property, arrests and executions, the creation of special extra-legal police and courts that allowed no witnesses and no appeals, and so on. Those things have been documented by so many historians, in so many languages over the past 30 years that one would really have to make a concerted effort to ignore or deny them.

The only problem with your logic here is that Napoleon completely remade France, reestablished institutions that the Jacobins had abolished, such as the Church, and was not a radical or a fanatic and didn't resort to terror to rule, and he governed by the rule of law-the Jacobins did not.

B:
Logic? Jacobins created a huge amount of laws, many of which Napoleon kept. They totally reorganized the internal administration of France, and I mean totally, not Napoleon. Napoleon kept that organization and then had it duplicated in every country he conquered… by "the rule of law", of course.

He kept many of the trapping of the Revolution, such as the calendar and the ten day week [not abolished until 1806] and the new moniker for subjects of his Empire: citizen. He didn't give the church back their lands and wealth or any of the lands confiscated from the nobles by the Jacobins and distributed to the French 'citizens.'

He kept a number of financial programs started by the Jacobins, including taxation methods for financing the army as well as their national conscription laws and military policies. Here are just a few of those specific Jacobin changes that Napoleon kept. Remember the Jacobins, indeed all the French revolutionaries wanted to create a completely new, rational society, and they largely accomplished that goal in the first five years of the Revolution, long before Napoleon came to power, and he kept those changes:

A. Legislative and institutional changes, including the transformation or abolition of every aspect of the l'ancien regime:

1.Uniformity of weights and measures
2. Bureacratic uniformity, rationality and centralization
3. Abolition of the old nobility and titles and all remanents of feudalism, Citoyen was the only correct form of address. It wasn't until after 1804 that his nobility was created.
4. Uniformity of the legal code, currency, markets and the French language. The Code de Napoleon was built around these changed, not created whole cloth or even a major change to any of it.
5.The level en masse of 1793, a total mobilization of everything and everyone in France for war. He kept those laws…you betcha.
6. Ablition of the traditional calendar--He only changed it back in 1806 when it became a problem in administering the newly conquered territories.
7. The opening of careers without restriction, the disillusion of guilds and ethnic and age prohibitions as well as the ghettos.
8 The issuance of 'assignats', a paper currency backed by the confiscated lands of the Crown and Church.
9.And my favorite: The secret police, a Jacobin creatiion, which Napoleon kept, including the man who ran it for the Revolutionary Jacobins… and expanded it's responsibilities.

Not only did Napoleon keep these changes, but instituted them in EVERY land he conquered and ruled from Holland, Spain, the German lands to Poland and Italy.

Napoleon did change France in the fifteen years he ruled, but much of the radical changes instituted by the Revolution, specifically the Jacobins, he kept and expanded, with very few exceptions.

And those are facts--changes made, changes kept--easily discovered anywhere, regardless of the logic you want to bring to bear on it.

Best Regards, Bill

'…Napoleon was a lawgiver whose code spread across continents.'-JC Herold

'Far from being evil, Napoleon was naturally good. If he had been evil with so much power at his disposal, would he be reproached for two or three acts of violence or anger during a government that lasted fifteen years!'-Baron Fain

'Napoleon had reigned as a true emperor, lawgiver, and builder. His Code Napoleon, which modernized and systemized French law in clear language, is still the basis of French law and has had world-wide influence. He built no new palaces but left a mighty heritage of harbors, highways, bridges, drained swamps, and canals…And he ruled as a civilian head of state, never as a military dictator'-John Elting

Instead of invoking the Civil Code and looking for passages in it that are not there, better to take a good look at the Penal Code (1810-which replaced the one of 1791-and was less harsh than that in force in Great Britain at the time) as well as The Code of Penal Instruction (1806). In the latter, though Napoleon believed that "these courts would have a great strength, they should be prohibited from abusing this situation against weak citizen without connections" remand, which is being held without trial for serious crimes, was still the rule in many cases, habeas corpus or not.

B

Thank you for providing quotes of opinions with which you agree.

Returning to the question: Could you please direct me to the relevant passages in French law which empower the state to arrest people, hold them without trial, and in some cases execute them, if they are deemed to be voicing criticism of the government?

Since Napoleon did all of these things, to both Frenchmen and foreigners, for the offense of criticizing his regime, and since you say he governed by the rule of law, then surely his doing so was according to the law.

"better to take a good look at the Penal Code (1810"

As you can see above, I did. I even cited a passage from it, to assist you. Now if you would be so kind as to look at it, yourself…

Where in it do you find the law(s) which empower the state to arrest people, hold them without trial, and in some cases execute them, if they are deemed to be voicing criticism of the government?

This should be a very simple exercise. Either something is in the law, or it is not. Either the state is acting according to the law, or it is not.

- –

Then, once we have established whether or not Napoleon's government arrested, incarcerated, and killed people outside the procedures stipulated by French law, we can turn to the question of whether Napoleon himself was ever, on any occasion, bound or restricted by law. But first things, first.

McLaddie and The Travelling Turk, very well put.
"Thank you for providing quotes of opinions with which you agree." Wonderfully put. Masterful, even.

Kevin, I will assume that your lack of response is a "No." You are not able to find anything in French law that allows the state to arrest people, hold them without trial, and in some cases execute them, if they are deemed to be voicing criticism of the government.

Since it has been copiously documented that Napoleon's regime did these things, both to Frenchmen and foreigners, and since such acts were not permitted under French law, therefore:

Napoleon did not govern according to the rule of law. Not even of his own laws.

Don't assume what is not in evidence. I haven't replied yet. You make too many assumptions in your postings as well as in your ideas, which isn't helpful.

You also need to be patient.

B

"You make too many assumptions in your postings as well as in your ideas, which isn't helpful."

Well, perhaps this would be helpful, then:

"Why not just be forthcoming in your postings? It's really easy to do."

— Kevin Kiley
TMP link

In any event, I eagerly await the relevant citations from French law, which empower the state to arrest people, hold them without trial, and in some cases execute them, if they are deemed to be voicing criticism of the government.

Need a hint? Call a lifeline? Ask the audience? Okay, just an eensy-weensy one, because we wouldn't want to make it so easy that it's not fun anymore.

For a primer on French constitutionalism and the transition to dictatorship, you may wish to read Maurice Duverger's Les Constitutions de la France (Paris, 1998). Take note of the transition between the 1799, 1802 and 1804 constitutions and the creation of dictatorial powers. (Duverger points out, among other things, that each revision of the constitution had less to say about individual and civil rights.)

Nonetheless, note Title VII, Sec. 53 of the 1804 constitution, in which the Emperor pledges to respect political and civil liberty (in the same sentence in which he pledges to respect religious liberty, etc.)

Okay, Meredith says that the Question, for 50,000 Napoléons d'Or and an 18-year-old draft substitute of your choice, is:

If the Constitution requires the monarch to respect your political liberty, but then the monarch arrests you and/or kills you, for publically or privately criticizing his policies… is the arrest or execution Constitutional?

Your choices are:

A) No, of course not, that's an obvious contradiction.

B) I love Napoleon and I don't care what you say.

C) Look at all the bad stuff the Russians did!

D) If you ignore unpleasant questions, they will eventually just go away.

Sam

Though I agree with you, how does that make Napoleon a Jacobin? An autocrat, no question, but, a Jacobin?

I don't have an opinion on whether he was a "real" Jacobin or not.

I was responding to Kevin's assertion that Napoleon "governed according to the rule of law." It is abundantly clear that he did not.

"Though I agree with you, how does that make Napoleon a Jacobin? An autocrat, no question, but, a Jacobin?"

The discussion had moved on. However, Brechtel198 seems to have developed a habit of ignoring arguments that are difficult to respond to, or evidence that he doesn't like. Brechtel198, quoting Cronin, told us that Buonaparte was secretary of the Valence Jacobin Club, but then denies that this suggests that he was a Jacobin:

"Vincent Cronin in his biography does not identify Napoleon as a Jacobin, though on page 56 he states that 'He was one of the first to join the Society of Friends of the Constitution, a group of 200 Valence patriots, and he became secretary. On 3 July 1791 he played a leading role in a ceremony at which twenty-three popular societies of Isere, Drome and Ardeche solemnly condemded the King's attempted flight to Belgium. Three days later he swore the oath demanded of all officers, 'to die rather than allow a foreign power to invade French soil.' On 14 July he swore an oath of loyalty to the new Constitution and, at a banquet the same evening, proposed a toast to the patriots of Auxonne.' These actions were undertaken by Napoleon in defense of the new Constitution and do not demonstrate that Napoleon was a Jacobin, rather that he was a loyal army officer prepared to defend his country."

Given that the "Amis de la Constitution" that Buonaparte was branch secretary of, as indicated in Brechtel198's quote, was a branch of the Jacobin Club, it would suggest to me that he was indeed a Jacobin.

The Travelling Turk

I get the impression that Bretchel198 is more interested in criticising me for acknowledging that his acolytes state that Correlli Barnett's book is 'worth reading' – despite my acknowledgement of this being based entirely on them clearly saying it is indeed 'worth reading' – than in answering your questions.

Chouan

The question is: did Napoleon follow Jacobin policies after he took the power?

Contrary to Kevin, I don't find the label Jacobin insulting at all. At the time, Jacobins were the most progressist party in France. Certainly, their association with the Terror has make of them a short of big bad wolf of the French Revolution, but their story is more complex than the cartoonish bloodthirsty fanatic depicted in aristocratic (and later, Napoleonic) propaganda.

(as an aside, I suspect that some people associates Jacobins with Communists, and then jump into a Cold War frame of mind which associates Communists with the Enemy, and therefore "bad people"… as Jacobins surely were, weren't they?)

Which are the facts? That Napoleon, when he was a young and ambitious officer, joined a Jacobin club and became its secretary for some months. Either he did it by conviction, or by opportunism, or a mix of both. However, it is also a fact that it represented a very short period in his whole career, and that he never showed any particular inclination toward the radical democratism that was the defining characteristic of Jacobinism. Therefore, it follows that to stress Napoleon's brief stint of Jacobinism -and I insist that it has a distinct smell of oportunism- is disingenuous at best.

@ Charared;
Now there's a combination for Lace Punk or an Imagination! Jacobin Jacobites!

My own view, for what it's worth, is that he was indeed a Jacobin, at the time. At that time his ambition was probably fairly limited (again only my own view) and the views of the Jacobins were those which an impoverished provincial may well have espoused fully. However, after his successes at Toulon, and the astounding success that followed may well have modified his views, and certainly changed his ambitions. Once he gains serious power, as a General at first, democratic principles are likely to become less important, and decreasing in importance the higher he rose.
However, active participation in the Club, and the writing of Jacobin pamphlets suggests to me that he really was a Jacobin, at that time. His attempted suppression of the "Souper de Beaucaire" later on suggests that he didn't want that part of his career to be remembered, which again suggests that he was seriously involved at that time.

"Seems to me that Cronin was just a little more thorough than Lyons on this subject."

It seems to me that Cronin wrote more, and added detail, conversations and "colour" to his account. That isn't evidence that he was more thorough than Lyons.

Well, a couple of comments. The first is that Napoleon wrote that he had an epiphany after Arcola [IIRC] to the effect he realized he was a Man of Destiny, no ambition was beyond him. Seven years later he is Emperor. So, his view of himself developed, as did his views on man and government.

Second, the Jacobin doctrine wasn't some alien set of beliefs only held by them during the early period of the Revolution. Some of the things that they esposed were:
1. The goodness of man
2. The utility and necessity of Reason in every enterprise, from art to government.
3. Unity and equality of men
4. The basic, unalienable Rights of Man, which read like an elaborated US Bill of Rights.
5. The belief that Monarchies and a nobility of previlige were inherently unfair and detrimental to the development of free men.
6. The will of the majority always being 'good' because man is inherently good.
7. A man should be able to rise based on his talent, not an accident of birth or monarchical favoritism.

Now most all of those beliefs were part of the fundemental beliefs of the 18th century Enlightenment, beliefs held by a good portion of the intellectual majorities from England to Poland. The Jacobins simply radicalized the implementation of those beliefs and carried some to logical absurdities.

Napoleon was a child of the enlightenment in many ways. He certainly, undeniably promulgated many of these beliefs during his rule, in France and the conquered countries. He implemented and/or kept a wide range of governmental and legal policies and laws specifically created by the Jacobins.

For instance, his Code Napoleon was built on laws established by the Jacobins, including where a person is presumed guilty until proven innocent. If the will of the people is 'good', then any arrest by the government of the people is presumed to be the right decision.

This is the opposite of the US legal and governmental view that man is prone to error and is basically selfish [bad], so government needs checks and balances, and men are presumed innocent until proven guilty. It was basically the Jacobin adherence to Rousseau's philosophy vs John Locke's and the US government.

Does that make Napoleon a Jacobin? As few Frenchmen, let alone anyone else in Europe would claim such an association after The Terror, while still espousing those beliefs listed abive, who knows?

What I do know is that Napoleon, the French army and French administration actively preached and implemented governments in the conquered countries based on those listed beliefs as well as at home.

Sparker

I think it was after the Battle of Lodi that Napoleon realised that his dreams could become a reality.

I realised every time I do the lottery, that if I win, my dreams will come true. Hasn't happened yet but still, gotta be in it to win it.

By the way, our stifle counts have really gone up, haven't they? You nearly caught me at one time.

""he governed by the rule of law"

-- Kevin Kiley

"I can back up my 'opinions' with fact from different reliable source material"

-- Kevin Kiley

Oh, you big tease! We waited so patiently.

So did you ever manage to find the French laws that allow the state to arrest people, hold them without trial, and in some cases execute them, if they are deemed to be voicing criticism of the government?

Or an example of Napoleon ever wanting to do something, but being prevented from doing so, by some law?

Or manage to determine whether the emperor's constitutional obligation to defend political liberties, entitles him to kill his people for expressing their political beliefs?

- -

I'd hate for you to have to carry around an opinion that is unsupported by the facts. I am told that no reasonable or intelligent person can long endure such a burden.

I don't have much time for Barnett. I think a good case can be made that Napoleon was a reckless military adventurer who got quite lucky for a while, but Barnett pretty much throws everything he can, including the kitchen sink, and hopes it will stick. Case in point is calling Napoleon a Jacobin. He is using that in blockheaded fashion as a perjorative and Kiley is reacting to the perjorative by making a lengthly argument that Napoleon was not a Jacobin. Well of course he was, it's just that he was a "singing" Jacobin rather than a "stabbing" Jacobin ("Simpsons" reference for the befuddled). As McLaddie helpfully pointed out, we take a lot of Jacobin ideas for granted now.

" Case in point is calling Napoleon a Jacobin. He is using that in blockheaded fashion as a perjorative"

Is he? Why would calling somebody a Jacobin be thought perjorative?

'Why would calling somebody a Jacobin be thought perjorative?'

Because the term came to be a synonym for radical or fanatic. You had Jacobins and the left and Royalists on the right as the potential problems during the Consulate and Empire.

Now we have come full circle.

B

"Because the term came to be a synonym for radical or fanatic."

There you go, yet again, confusing radical and fanatic, and assuming that Jacobins were either, or rather, you think that they're both. Explain to me what is "fanatical" about those "Friends of the Constitution", (that Buonaparte was a branch secretary of) the Jacobins.

The terms were defined for you and there is little difference between them. So, you can take your pick.

What you need to do is demonstrate where Napoleon acted as a radical or fanatic. He supported the Revolution because he was anti-monarchy. He also disagreed with the Terror and the murder of innocent French civilians.

Perhaps you should read just a little further than Barnett?

B

It seems that the root of the problem here is that Barnett rather ignorantly used Jacobinism as a stick to beat his subject without understanding what Jacobinism actually was.

However, there is no doubt that Bonaparte was, for a time, a Jacobin (although possibly not a hugely committed one) so arguing against an historical fact merely because Barnett wrongly uses it as a slur seems rather bizarre and an over reaction.

I disagree.

Alan Forrest in his biography of Napoleon quotes Napoleon regarding the Jacobins on page 49 that they, the Jacobins 'were 'madmen who are lacking in common sense.'' I do believe that the terms 'radical' and 'fanatic' can also be synonymous with 'madmen.'

Forest further states on page 48 that 'With the passage of time, however, his [Napoleon's] letters suggest a growing disquiet at the violence and extremism of some elements of the population, in particular the Jacobins and the Paris crowd.'

B

There you go again, quoting another modern author as proof of something for which he is not proof. To equate a radical with a madman is a somewhat interesting point of view. As for equating fanaticism with a madman, in the context of the discussion that has been going on here over so many threads, I find that even more fascinating and intriguing,

If Napoleon was not a Jacobin of some sort, why was he secretary of a Jacobin club?

As for his later disillusionment with Jacobinism, that just shows that he became disillusioned.

"What you need to do is demonstrate where Napoleon acted as a radical or fanatic."

No, I don't. I only need to demonstrate that Buonaparte was a Jacobin. I've demonstrated that repeatedly using your evidence from Cronin that Buonaparte was a Jacobin. It has also been demonstrated by others that the Jacobins weren't fanatics, although they were radicals. The definitions that you gave were very selective; again as has been pointed out elsewhere, a radical Tory, for example isn't necessarily a fanatic, although they might be a swivel-eyed loon (alright, it was last week's joke).

"He supported the Revolution because he was anti-monarchy."

Despite setting himself up as a monarch, so a bit of hypocrisy there, I'm sure you'll agree.

"He also disagreed with the Terror and the murder of innocent French civilians."

Did he? He seemed to have done very well out of it, and was closely associated with some of the main instruments of the Terror in the area, Saliceti, Robespierre and Freron.

"Perhaps you should read just a little further than Barnett?"

what makes you think that I haven't? In any case, to enlighten yourself about the ideas of the Jacobins, try Alan Forrest's "Paris, the Provinces and the French Revolution", or "Reshaping France: Town, Country and Region During the French Revolution", with Peter Jones. Or even "THE JACOBIN REPUBLIC, 1792-1794" by Marc Bouloiseau. There are others, if you wish for guidance in an area with which you are clearly unfamiliar, please let me know.

The 'modern author' quoted Napoleon. That isn't secondary material.

As has been brought out on these threads, French army officers at the beginning of the Revolution and until the end of the Terror, usually had to find something to protect themselves from being proscribed or associated with the Royalists.

Some actually refused promotion in order to not be in the limelight and have their fate decided by the whim of a Representative on Mission, who had the power of life and death in the armies.

Napoleon's initial sentiments were for a constitutional monarchy. After the Varennes episode, he became a republican and supported the Revolution and the Republic.

And if a secondary source is credible, and I believe all of Alan Forrest's works are, there is not a problem using them for research. If you don't agree with that premise, that's up to you, but to criticize someone else for using them is nonsense, unless it can be shown that the volume in question is not reliable/credible.

For you own research, of course, you can do as you please.

B

This is actually quite an interesting thread. We hardly ever discuss on this board the early days of the French Revolution and Napoleon's role. We could all learn something if we stop bickering.