"Governing by the Rule of Law" Topic

Regarding Napoleon governing by the rule of law, comments were made on this forum which were disingenuous, misleading, and, in short, a red herring. Stating that finding information regarding this topic in the Civil Code is the wrong way to go, as this has to do with civil, not criminal law. This was mentioned briefly in response to the allegations that Napoleon was a tyrant and didn't govern by the rule of law.

What should have been looked at was the Code of Criminal Procedure (not even the Penal Code of 1810 is that helpful). These comments made regarding Napoleon and the rule of law demonstrated a great bias against anything Napoleon did regarding his government and ruling France and the Empire and also clearly demonstrated ignorance regarding Napoleon himself, the Consular and Imperial government, and the Grande Armee.

It was also either incorrect or incomplete information on the subject.

Napoleon was a soldier first and foremost, but as a head of state he acted as a civilian, and not a military dictator. Napoleon was also considered the ‘most civilian' among the senior French general officers, which is noteworthy.

Further, arrests could be made arbitrarily according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, so the comment in the threads regarind habeas corpus, etc., and Napoleon not acting according to the law are incorrect.

From the Napoleonic Revolution by Robert Holtman:

‘In addition to the Civil Code, five other codes were drawn up. The Rural Code was never adopted; those which went into effect were a Code of Civil Procedure in 1806, a Commercial Code in 1807, a Code of Criminal Procedure in 1808, and a Penal Code in 1810. The Penal Code was both progressive and reactionary; reactionary in that it provided for severe and unjust penalties-among them branding, and the cutting off of a hand for parricide in addition to decapitation; progressive in its provision for minimum and maximum rather than fixed penalties. The Code of Criminal Procedure was reactionary in that it permitted arbitrary arrest and partially reestablished the secrecy of court proceedings that had prevailed during the ancient regime; the accused could no longer hear the testimony against him.'-93.

‘The Imperial police has been slandered. It was arbitrary, that was in its nature; that's why in free countries people disapprove of a so-called [ministry of] general police…For my part, I can guarantee that, in all the ministerial correspondence, I never saw anything that could offend the conscience of an honest man, and I often found there liberal principles that would vindicate, if that were possible, an institution condemned at all times by public opinion…If one considers the obstacles and the perils that ceaselessly threatened the Emperor and the Empire, I can guarantee that in terms of arbitrary actions the imperial police remained far inferior to the police in states that were more solidly established.'-Antoine-Clair Thibaudeau, prefect of Bouche-du-Rhone.

‘A decree of March 1810 authorized the Privy Council to make punitive arrests. Theoretically these were for a maximum of a year; the reality was quite different. An order signed by the Minister of Police and the grand judge also sufficed to put a man in jail; again there was a theoretical limit, of ten days, but no authority seemed concerned about it.'

Regarding the comment, without either examples or sourcing about ‘executions' doesn't agree with information that is available. If the d'Enghien and Palm cases are being referenced, both were given trials, and Palm's trial had five defendants, Palm being the only one condemned to death-the other four were released.

What is usually overlooked is that justice 200 years ago actually was ‘swift' and not as complicated as it is today. You cannot judge legal procedures of ca 1800 with the viewpoint of legalese in the 21st century. They are not equitable in either procedures or punishments. And it should be remembered that a definition of ‘justice' is that the accused gets what he deserves, it does not mean, which too many today believe, that the accused gets off or is found ‘not guilty.'

From Napoleon and Europe edited by Philip Dwyer:

‘Order and stability, in other words, were brought about and maintained by harsh measures of repression, but there was nothing unusual in this. Any regime would have suppressed unrest in much the same way…'-7.

‘The Napoleonic police were able to hold people in detention for an indefinite term by mesure e haute police (an order from the Ministry of Police). In real terms, however, never more than a couple of hundred political prisoners existed at any one time, and very few people were executed or even deported for political reasons. Indeed, the few political executions that were carried out under Napoleon-such as the duc d'Enghien, the Nuremberg bookseller Palm, and the two Austrian booksellers in Linz-seem to have been knee-jerk reactions and not part of a premeditated, systematic attempts to eliminate opposition. Despite periodic lapses, the Napoleonic regime was essentially based on the rule of law, and certainly political repression under Napoleon was mild in comparison to the Terror. Internal exile wa a much more common punishment than imprisonment or execution.'

It is interesting to research today and find the term ‘repression' employed quite freely regarding late 18th and early 19th forms of justice and the activities of the police. It may or may not have been considered ‘repression' in the societies that are being studied.

‘I was as perfectly free as I am in England, I went whithersoever I was desirous of going, and was uniformly received with the same politeness and hospitality as while pace still subsisted between the two countries [Britain and France]. I never witnessed harsh measures of the government but towards the turbulent and factious; I saw everywhere works of public utility going forward; industry, commerce, and the arts encouraged; and I could not consider the people as unhappy, or the government as odious…I have found speech everywhere as free in France as in England; I have heard persons deliver their sentiments on Bonaparte and his government, whether favorable or unfavorable, without the least reserve; and that not in private companies only, among friends all known to each other, but in the most public manner, and in the most mixed societies, in diligences, and at tables-d'hote, where none could be previously acquainted with the character or sentiments of those with whom they were conversing, and where some one among the company might be a spy of the police for anything that the others knew to the contrary-yet this idea was no restraint upon them.'-Anne Plumptre, A Narrative of a Three Years' Residence in France…from the year 1802-1805

‘…a change had occurred which escapes statistics. Of the Seine Inferieure a Government official had written on the eve of Brumaire: ‘Crime with impunity, desertion encouraged, republicanism debased, laws an empty letter, banditry protected,' and went on to describe how the Le Havre-Rouen stagecoach was regularly halted and pillaged. In 1805 the prefect Beugnot, a level-headed man, was able to paint quite another picture. People paid their taxes; the law was enforced, children attended school, highway robbery was unheard of, farmers were applying new methods, people had real money to spend…The wheels, in short, were turning, the machine worked. And Frenchmen…were thankful. In 1799 there had been ‘disgust with the Government'; in 1805 Beugnot found ‘an excellent public spirit.'-Cronin, 209.

The following excerpts from the sources noted also definitely demonstrate that Napoleon was not a military dictator and that he ruled fairly, but firmly. In short, Napoleon was not a tyrant. And it should be remembered that the United States Constitution was written and implemented in order to have a stronger central government and it created the executive, the president, who has the ability to draft and issue executive orders without consulting Congress. That ability can be interpreted as being authoritarian in nature.

From ‘Imperial France in 1808 and Beyond by Thierry Lentz contained in The Napoleonic Empire and the New European Political Culture edited by Michael Broers, Peter Hicks, and Augustin Guimera:

‘That the regime introduced by Napoleon was an authoritarian regime can hardly be disputed. That we can characterize it simply as a dictatorship however seems excessive…the presence of opposing powers, the durability of certain principles limiting the action of the executive, and the circumstances themselves all contrived to reduce the head of state's room to maneuver.'-26.

‘Once this justification for the definition of the regime as a military dictatorship has been eliminated (that based on the origins of the regime), we can ask whether the First Empire was a military dictatorship. And the answer is no.'-27.

'It is unlikely that the army has ever played such a limited role in France, and it certainly did not play a practical role in the maintenance of law and order, a task which was fulfilled by the gendarmerie and the police.'-Gilbert Bodinier

‘Napoleon was constantly on guard against the generals' ambition and the people's discontent; he was unceasingly occupied with stifling the one and preventing the other. He was seen throughout to observe the greatest reserve as regards his generals; he always kept them at a great distance from him.'-Chaptal.

‘We often get the impression that the army had a predominant place in Napoleonic society, and this impression is fuelled by the fact that many generals accepted posts of responsibility at the heart of its institutions and administrative bodies. The presence of military pomp and grandeur at the numerous ceremonies and the precedence accorded to superior officers seem like further proof. It is important, however, to put these facts into perspective, even though, during this period of conflict, the army gives the impression of being one of the mainstays-more symbolic, it must be said, than active, at least domestically speaking-of the imperial regime.'-27.

‘Despite appearances, the First Empire was not a military dictatorship. We can therefore trust Napoleon was sincere when he said: ‘Military authority has no place or use in the civil order. The Emperor appears to have earned the respect of Roederer who, immediately post-Brumaire, stated that he (Napoleon) was ‘the most civilian of generals.'-30

Napoleon to Talleyrand:

‘The English constitution is nothing but a charter of privileges: it is a ceiling all in black though embroidered in gold.'

‘Napoleonic power was not exerted arbitrarily but within established judicial norms. The fundamental law of the First Empire was the evolutionary series of reforms begun in 1789, which Godechot called the ‘irreversible options': equality before the law, the abolition of feudalism, and a constitutional and representative government. With a few organizational readjustments (the concentration of the executive, the reorganization of national representation, the division of the legislature) there was constitutional activity under Napoleon, which could even be described as lively. Understanding the interpretation, application and evolution of these constitutional principles without being constrained by ‘liberal thought'-dominant today but not at the time-allows us better to understand the evolution of the Napoleonic state as it gradually but ineluctably advanced towards the ‘legislation' of the exercise of power in France.'-31.

‘Bonaparte was already a partisan of strong government, as can be seen in his letter to Talleyrand, itself a sort of first draft for his constitutional project: ‘In a government in wich every authority emanates from the nation, in which the sovereign is of the people, why include in the legislative power such things that are foreign to it?…The power of the government, in all the breadth I give it, should be considered the true representative of the nation, and it should govern in according to the constitutional charter…It would comprise the entirety of the administration or the execution, which is by our constitution conferred on the legislative power…[The] legislative power, impassive, without rank in the Republic, without eyes or ears for that which surrounds it, would have no ambition and would no longer inundate us with a thousand circumstantial laws which are self-defeating through their very absurdity, and which make us a lawless nation with three-hundred large tomes of laws.'-32.

'Truly it is difficult to conceive of a constitution which offers more guarantees for the rights of the people. It is difficult to leave less to the arbitrary judgment of the head of the government. The limits of power are clear and unconfused.'-Chaptal

‘Apart from its leader, the State now stood at the center of French society. One author has even written of a ‘Napoleonic Revolution.' Napoleon succeeded where Louis XVI and his ministers had failed in the 1780s. He strengthened and modernized the state, again imbuing it with both unity and authority.'-34-35.

‘…Bonaparte spared France from a violent, military dictatorship. The Napoleonic regime made its soldiers obedient tools of the government, not a state within a state…The gradual tightening of the Napoleonic regime is of course irrefutable. But to criticize the consular and imperial seizure of power, is to do so in the name of the French Revolution, a revolution which had little respect for the principles it sought to impose on the world.'-35

From The First Napoleon by John Ropes:

‘The fall of Toulon was followed by wholesale executions. Even Lanfrey, who invariably makes the worst of the subject of his biography, admits frankly that all these harsh and barbarous things were abhorrent to Napoleon's nature, and that he did what he could to shield those unfortunatels who came under the suspicion of the authorities. As to this side of Napoleon's character, we may as well pause here a moment and consider it. In spite of all the battles that he fought, and all the death, wounds, sickness, and misery inseparable from such vast military operations for twenty years he conducted, it may safely be affirmed that Napoleon was not a harsh, still less a cruel man. All the contemporary writers of any authority admit this in so many words, even though they may consider his comparative indifference to all this suffering almost as bad as cruelty or harshness, and even though they can point to some incidents in his career that certainly look like both. But the popular accusations of napoleon on his head proceeds on the mistaken notion that to conduct so many wars a man must have a very hard heart. A little reflection, however, will show that this need not be so at all. A statesman deciding on war may no doubt often be charged rightly with not having sufficiently considered the miseries which his decision must involve. But, culpable as this is, it does not show any unusual indifference to human suffering: it is merely the failure properly to bring these wretched incidents of war before the mind; it is a deficiency in imagination…Napoleon, bred in a military school, wrapped up in the military profession, undoubtedly considered war and the shortest and best way of settling all political disputes; and, very likely, as a military man, ‘a man of war from his youth,' many of the incidents of a campaign which to the civilian mind are most distressing were so familiar that it never occurred to him to notice them. As the ruler of the French Empire he no doubt often resorted to war when any one in his place not a military man, and accustomed as he was to military methods, would have chosen some peaceful mode of action. When at the head of an army, careful as he undeniably was of his soldiers' welfare in all respects, he used them, as any general who expects to win a battle must use them, with a single eye to the success of the day, and without allowing the imagination to raise disturbing pictures of wounds and death. Just so, a surgeon, devoted to his profession, magnifying its importance, may resort to an operation when his professional brother, the physician, would have counseled milder treatment; and, when he is performing the operation, he must, if he is a good surgeon, sue the knife unshrinkingly. Yet we all know that it would be very erroneous for us to attribute to such a surgeon any special harshness of temper or indifference to human suffering. Bearing these principles and keeping these analogies in mind, we shall understand, I think, pretty clearly what can and what cannot fairly be alleged against Napoleon in this regard. He was, as I have said, a soldier, born and bred; he was all his life in the army; he had a genius for war, and was skillful and successful beyond measure in military operations. If he sometimes engaged in a war when one more alive to its evils would have avoided it, he never countenanced unnecessary or purposeless fighting. With him, a battle was always a serious and a critical mater; the troops were spared as much as possible beforehand; it was always his plan to make the encounter a decisive one, and for this end he spared no pains. In his attention to the sick and wounded he has never been surpassed.'-15-18.

‘…that in [Napoleon] there exited any very definite and solemn recognition of his responsibilities; that his life was a struggle to come up to the requirements of an educated and vigilant conscience. Be it so. Nevertheless, it remains true, that his powers were always at the service of the public; that his efforts as a whole were on the right side; that he was the unsparing foe of tyranny and injustice; and that he did more than any man of his time to relieve the masses of the people of Europe from the burdens which oppression and intolerance had laid upon them, and to open to them the prospects and hopes which under a liberal and enlightened government give to life so much of its enjoyment and value. He must be classed among the friends and helpers of the race.'-307-308.

‘It is not inconsistent with the views here presented of the character of Napoleon, that we should find him occasionally resorting to measures of extreme severity. Where it seemed to him to be necessary, in order to preserve his army, to suppress dangerous insurrections, or the like, he rarely hesitated to employ what seemed to him the most sure mode of accomplishing his object. It is in this way that we must account for the wholesale execution of the prisoners of Jaffa, most of whom, having been recently released on parole, were found again in arms against the French. In a similar light we should regard the severities which accompanied the final extinction of the insurrections in La Vendee, and those which he recommended his brother Joseph to employ against the fierce and obstinate resistance of the Neapolitan lazzaroni. In this unhesitating employment of force on occasions of this nature, Napoleon much resembvled Cromwell.'

‘But this sort of thing does not constitute a man a tyrant, or even a harsh ruler. The stability of society, the welfare of well-disposed citizens, the interests of progress and of liberal government even, may well, in times of turmoil and revolution, be more secure when entrusted to such a man, than if committed to the charge of one less practical and less inflexible.' 309-310.

So, it appears that Napoleon did govern by the rule of law and not arbitrarily. Also, he was no tyrant. And compared with his fellow heads of state, he ruled justly and fairly. He may very well have developed into an autocrat, but the evidence shows that he ruled as a civilian head of state and not as a military dictator. The ‘accusations' that Napoleon did not govern by the rule of law are incorrect and nothing of substance was put forward to demonstrate that incorrect theory.

B

Just when you thought it was safe to go back on the Napoleonics Boards …

Historical research can be just a little scary…

B

Quoting lengthy tracts from a modern book hardly qualifies as 'historical research'

Really?

What would you qualify it as then? Seems to me that if you have to look up material, both primary and secondary, then that is research.

And all of the material posted was not 'recent.'

B

Here are two definitions of 'research' which apply:

1. diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications, etc.: recent research in medicine.

2. to make an extensive investigation into: to research a matter thoroughly.

Seems to me that fits the bill here.

B

Some one said, 'If you copy from one book it is plagiarism; if you copy from three or more, it is research.'

To research a topic, you need to check the secondary literature on it; just to know what has been written and how. Thus you avoid repetition, or, as one of my professors said: you won't "discover" that the Sun comes out from the East. Also, you find possible gaps in the literature on your topic of choice, either regarding the interpretation of the sources or the method used to interpret them.

Then, once you are familiar with the secondary sources, you elaborate a hypothesis (well, not necessarily, but usually it comes handy to have one), and check it against the primary sources. This part is usually tricky. There is a risk, that any researcher worth his/her salt is aware of: to use only the material (or parts therein) that supports your hypothesis, and leaving out those which doesn't.

Historical research is, somehow, like preparing a case for a court of law. Would you imagine what kind of defense would get a defendant if his/her lawyer would just take a look to the police report and based all the defense on its contents? That is what means using secondary sources only. You need to check them against the witness statements; to cross exam them; to look at the evidence from other angles… That is what a good historian does: to check everything against the available evidence, not only against secondary sources that would confirm him in his preconceptions.

Kevin, I think you've exceeded even your own impressive previous accomplishments in cherry-picking! I note your preference for Robert Holtman's book "Napoleonic Revolution," but I suspect you're not as fond of his book "Napoleonic Propaganda," in which he refers to the French Empire as "A police state."

- – -

So you're back to this? I can't believe that I'm sticking my hand into the Kiley tarbaby again, but all right… Okay. Let's go back to the question you never answered. I stated it four times. Maybe Five is the charm:

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.

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. All you have to do is cite the law.

---

And then the other question was:

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

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?

PS – I'm leaving for a long hiking trip in the mountains, so I won't be responding for a few days, but I'll look forward, upon my arrival, to see the specific citations in French law, which answer the questions as written.

You've been given enough evidence to answer your questions and to refute what you have written.

What you haven't done is give the specifics of the arrests and the execution to which you refer.

It seems to me that you're constructing nothing but a strawman argument and you definitely have not shown that Napoleon didn't govern by the rule of law.

In short, it definitely appears that you are incorrect yet again regarding Napoleon and his government.

The reference to the Code of Criminal Procedure is quite evident in the posting, so now it's up to you to refute or not. Interestingly, you've provided no evidence at all…

B

To amplify the preceding posting, nothing is 'cherry picked' nor taken out of context.

The following passages from Dwyer and Holtman answer the question quite handily:

From Napoleon and Europe edited by Philip Dwyer:

‘Order and stability, in other words, were brought about and maintained by harsh measures of repression, but there was nothing unusual in this. Any regime would have suppressed unrest in much the same way…'-7.
‘The Napoleonic police were able to hold people in detention for an indefinite term by mesure e haute police (an order from the Ministry of Police). In real terms, however, never more than a couple of hundred political prisoners existed at any one time, and very few people were executed or even deported for political reasons. Indeed, the few political executions that were carried out under Napoleon-such as the duc d'Enghien, the Nuremberg bookseller Palm, and the two Austrian booksellers in Linz-seem to have been knee-jerk reactions and not part of a premeditated, systematic attempts to eliminate opposition. Despite periodic lapses, the Napoleonic regime was essentially based on the rule of law, and certainly political repression under Napoleon was mild in comparison to the Terror. Internal exile wa a much more common punishment than imprisonment or execution.'

From the Napoleonic Revolution by Robert Holtman:

‘A decree of March 1810 authorized the Privy Council to make punitive arrests. Theoretically these were for a maximum of a year; the reality was quite different. An order signed by the Minister of Police and the grand judge also sufficed to put a man in jail; again there was a theoretical limit, of ten days, but no authority seemed concerned about it.'

‘In addition to the Civil Code, five other codes were drawn up. The Rural Code was never adopted; those which went into effect were a Code of Civil Procedure in 1806, a Commercial Code in 1807, a Code of Criminal Procedure in 1808, and a Penal Code in 1810. The Penal Code was both progressive and reactionary; reactionary in that it provided for severe and unjust penalties-among them branding, and the cutting off of a hand for parricide in addition to decapitation; progressive in its provision for minimum and maximum rather than fixed penalties. The Code of Criminal Procedure was reactionary in that it permitted arbitrary arrest and partially reestablished the secrecy of court proceedings that had prevailed during the ancient regime; the accused could no longer hear the testimony against him.'-93.

Imperial decrees were regarded as law by the French, as were the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure promulgated in 1810. It was not as draconian as its English equivalent.

If there are any disagreements, I would suggest posting them with supporting information for a logical discussion.

I would also submit that any reference to a Napoleonic 'police state' does not have the implication ca 1800 as it does today looking at it through 20th and 21st century sensabilities.

B

Yes, Napoleon has been slandered cruelly and unjustly by his enemies.

Everyone knows the Duc D' Enghien died of natural causes.

For what is more natural than to die when bullets pass through the body.

Regarding d'Enghien, he was found guilty by a court-martial of being in the pay of Great Britain, with whom France was at war at the time.

D'Enghien himself at the trial stated that he took England's pay 'in order to combat not France but a government to which his birth had made him hostile.' And that he 'had asked England if I might serve in her armies, but she replied that that was impossible' and that he 'must wait on the Rhine, where [he] would have a part to play immediately.' He concluded with 'I was in fact waiting.'

He was found guilty of violating Article 2 of the Law of 6 October 1791, to wit 'Any conspiracy and plot aimed at disturbing the State by civil war, and arming the citizens against one another, or against lawful authority, will be punished by death.'

You might want to take a look at Les dernieres annees du duc d'Enghien by Alfred Boulay de la Meurthe. It is available on Google Books.

B

Napoleon Bonaparte, God's gift to mankind.
Can we have more acolytes?

Yes Brecthel and Hitler was appointed to the Chancellorship of Germany LEGALY by Hindenberg on January 30, 1933, and on March 23, 1933 the enabling act was passed LEGALLY by the Reichstag (which superceded the Reichstag with the Chancell0r) ,and in 1934 the final consolidation came with the merging (LEGALLY) of the office of the Presidency and the Chancellor. So everything Hitler did was LEGAL.

I am sure that was a great comfort to his victims and makes it all better.

So you can't cite the relevant parts of French law then?

'Yes Brecthel and Hitler was appointed to the Chancellorship of Germany LEGALY by Hindenberg on January 30, 1933, and on March 23, 1933 the enabling act was passed LEGALLY by the Reichstag (which superceded the Reichstag with the Chancell0r) ,and in 1934 the final consolidation came with the merging (LEGALLY) of the office of the Presidency and the Chancellor. So everything Hitler did was LEGAL. I am sure that was a great comfort to his victims and makes it all better.'

Making the comparison of Napoleon and Hitler is usually the part of a discussion where the person making the comparison has already lost the discussion or missed the entire point of the discussion. The comparison is a great insult to Napoleon and a great compliment to Hitler.

The historian JC Herold commented on making the comparison in the introduction to his book The Mind of Napoleon in 1955. Here is a portion of it. If you're actually interested, you might find the book interesting also.

'Certain external and by no means accidental similarities between Napoleon's career and that of Hitler have blinded some men to the far more significant contrasts. Unlike Napoleon, Hitler is likely to go down in history as another Attila or Jenghiz Khan. Hitler destroyed the law; Napoleon was a lawgiver whose code spread across continents. That difference alone should be enough to discourage comparison. Hitler was a maniacal crank with an ideology; Napoleon, sane and self-controlled, despised ideologies. Hitler appealed to hatred; Napoleon, to honor. Hitler extolled that dark, instinctual monster which he called the People and which Taine had called the gorilla; Napoleon had seen that monster in action during the Reign of Terror, and he preferred to perish rather than invoke its power. Napoleon, when he began his career, embodied the hopes of sane and noble minds (not the least among them Beethoven's); Hitler began and ended surrounded by a handful of psychopaths. But why insist on the contrast? Perhaps there is no difference between them but the difference between the Age of Reason and the Age of Hatred. It's a substantial difference.'-JC Herold, The Mind of Napoleon, xxxviii.

B

What's wrong with Gengis…

Man was a legend. Bit off comparing him to Hitler.

Ah, the Code Napoleon. A paragon of égalité.

Perhaps Brechtel could tell us if these two articles from the Code really did apply across the whole of France or not?

L'exersise des droits civils est indépendant de la qualité de Citoyen, laquelle ne s'acquiert et ne se conserve que conformément à la loi constitutionnelle.

Tout Français jouira des droit civils.

'What's wrong with Gengis…Man was a legend. Bit off comparing him to Hitler.'

The destroyed cities, the massacred populations, and mounds of skulls might have had something to do with it…

B

Sorry. Ghengis was fine if you embraced his rule and surrendered with out. Fight.

Besides all mute. As comparing historical figures from different periods is childish and bad history right?

'Sorry. Ghengis was fine if you embraced his rule and surrendered with out. Fight.'

I don't think so. The following is from The Superstrategists by John Elting, pages 234-235:

'Usually the Mongols avoided sieges until the enemy's main army had been destroyed, though they might drop off an occasional tumen to contain the garrisons of larger cities until that had been accomplished. Thereafter, they would herd together captives from a city already taken or from the rural population and drive them into assaults against those cities that still held out, killing them if they flinched. These improvised attacks wore out the defenders and exhausted their supplies of missiles. Then, once their unwilling allies were expended, the Mongols moved in on the 'softened' defenses. During Genghis Khan's conquest of the Khwarizmian Empire (centered in what today is Iran) in 1219-1222, great city after great city was beaten or tricked into submission and their populations (except for handfuls of useful craftsman and choice women) butchered. Details of Mongols would remain behind to hunt down any survivors like rats; the surrounding farmland would be left too ruined to feed any that might finally escape. During the Mongol raid into Hungary in 1241, fleeing inhabitants were promised mercy and protection if they would return to their homes and get in their crops. The crops once gathered, the Mongols killed the men, used the women, then killed them. At the end of each campaign the captives picked up for various purposes were sorted over, and all but the most useful were casually cut down. Mercy was forbidden without express authorization from Genghis Khan himself.'

'Such massacres usually were methodical, dispassionate affairs, inflicted on unwarlike civilians who had sought only to submit with as little fuss as possible. Word of them sent terror sifting across the world like a psychological fallout. It was horrifyingly effective. Throughout Asia multitides of people would submit to comparative handfuls of Mongols; serve them in numb, cringing terror; and finally, on command, tie one anothers' hands and wait to have their throats slit. It did take longer to kill the population of a major city by hand than it does to drop one nuclear bomb, but the resulting mess and demoralization were much the same, and the percentage of actual 'kills' was infinitely higher than in Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Besides, the week or so thus joyfully spent allowed plentiful opportunities for leisurely rape and looting. Genghis Khan spoke for all Mongols in his expression of the greatest joy possible to mankind: 'to cut my enemies to pieces, drive them before me, seize their possessions, witness the tears of those dear to them, and embrace their wives and daughters.'

B

'Ah, the Code Napoleon. A paragon of égalité.
Perhaps Brechtel could tell us if these two articles from the Code really did apply across the whole of France or not?
-L'exersise des droits civils est indépendant de la qualité de Citoyen, laquelle ne s'acquiert et ne se conserve que conformément à la loi constitutionnelle.
-Tout Français jouira des droit civils.'

The question actually is, do you have evidence that they did not?

If so, then posting it would be most interesting and helpful.

Further, you have to balance it with the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the Civil Code did not cover those subjects, but persons, property, civil procedure and the acquisition of property, hence the title 'Code Civile.'

B

Merriam Webster defines tyrant thus:

Definition of TYRANT

1
a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
b : a usurper of sovereignty
2
a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power

1.b certainly fits. I submit the great man was indeed a "tyrant". Drafting great swaths of his male population to fight his wars of conquest in Spain and Russia might make 2b fit as well but that is a judgement call.

Oxford English Dictionary agrees:

Definition of tyrant
noun
1a cruel and oppressive ruler:
the tyrant was deposed by popular demonstrations
a person exercising power or control in a cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary way:
her father was a tyrant and a bully
(especially in ancient Greece) a ruler who seized power without legal right.
2a tyrant flycatcher.

Slavery and Apartheid were both legal. Legal does not equal "good".

EDIT: Combined two posts:

Hitler did not destroy the law. The enabling decrees passed by the Reichstag essentially said that every word that passes from the mount of Hitler is the law.

You are shifting the argument to enbrace a moral content, at which point your whole argument falls to pieces.

But, I already recognize your strategy. You aren't really concerned about Napoloeon, you're trolling for controversy here. Or at least I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't really believe this stuff you put out.

By the way the correct name for the morm of argument you are using is "modus eusophagus" which menas, if you swallow this you'll swallow anything.

Surely as Hitler was legally appointed to power that puts him one up vs. Napoleon on the legal front?

'Ah, the Code Napoleon. A paragon of égalité.
Perhaps Brechtel could tell us if these two articles from the Code really did apply across the whole of France or not?
-L'exersise des droits civils est indépendant de la qualité de Citoyen, laquelle ne s'acquiert et ne se conserve que conformément à la loi constitutionnelle.
-Tout Français jouira des droit civils.'

The question actually is, do you have evidence that they did not?

If so, then posting it would be most interesting and helpful.

Sorry, turning the question around and putting the onus on me won't work I'm afraid. I asked first, my question stands.

You may either answer it or continue evading it. The choice is yours.

Further, you have to balance it with the Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the Civil Code did not cover those subjects, but persons, property, civil procedure and the acquisition of property, hence the title 'Code Civile.'

You do understand the French language of Napoleon's era I trust (If not, I will be happy to supply a translation. Please ask. Though it is a little odd that a Napoleonic scholar is lacking in French language comprehension)? So you can read what I posted? They are the two tenets on which any criminal justice system rests. Or should rest.

Now, I ask again, if you would oblige me with a reply to my original point?

Only took what? Four posts before we were arguing the definitions of words instead of discussing the topic. No, I didn't read beyond that.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Back with sore legs from hiking the Lahn valley, and I can see that Kevin at last got to the point:

"Imperial decrees were regarded as law by the French"

Bingo!

Napoleon ruled by decree. Just like every other absolute monarch of the time. He did not "govern by the rule of law." He was in no way constrained by the law. If he said, "Kill this annoying person who has been criticizing me," that person was killed. (And usually without a decree. Typically just an order would suffice.)

Whether or not any existing French law made it "legal" or constitutional.

I'm glad we're clear on that now.

A British prime minister or an American president governed by the rule of law. Napoleon governed by decree.

"What you haven't done is give the specifics of the arrests and the execution to which you refer."

Now you're just doing that old trick where if you don't like evidence, you pretend it doesn't exist. Aside from all the examples recently posted here:

TMP link
(in which I even provided you with the archival file #s from French police reports.)

and the example here:
TMP link

…to which you never replied, of course (therefore they must not exist), I and other historians have provided hundreds of examples over the years. In some cases, even in books that you name-drop here, having cherry-picked quotes from.

But since you're fond of bringing up the Palm case, we can just use that as an example:

"Palm's trial had five defendants, Palm being the only one condemned to death-the other four were released."

Okay, those are YOUR WORDS. You can't possibly claim that anybody has "failed to provide evidence," harrumph harrumph.

Here's some more of your words:

"Napoleon governed according to the rule of law."

Okay: just using the example that *You* provided, and the claim that *You* made:

Five men (who aren't even Frenchmen) are arrested in 1806 for the crime of criticizing Napoleon's regime, and one of those men is executed. We all agree on these facts, correct?

Therefore, all that remains to be answered is:

What existing French law in 1806 empowered the state to arrest and/or execute men in a foreign country, for the crime of criticizing the government?

(The answer of course is: no law. Napoleon decreed it, and so he was executed.)

I believe we agree on every detail of this case, as described above, correct?

Here is an example from an "A Level" exam paper from about 5 years ago; The students had to read the sources and answer the questions.

"SOURCE 2
(From a letter of Napoleon to Marshal Berthier, 7 September 1807, about an incident in French-occupied Prussia)
You must be sure to inform Marshal Soult, by special messenger, of the incident at Konigsberg, where two actors, appearing on the stage as French officers, were hissed by the audience. You will tell Marshal Soult that I have demanded satisfaction from the King of Prussia for this insult, and this requires that the two chief culprits be shot. Marshal Soult is to inform his Prussian opposite number of the base and despicable character of which I have had to complain, and of the precise terms in which I have demanded satisfaction."

Rule of Law? Or Rule by Decree?

I have a funny feeling that (yet again) these questions will simply not be answered, and, in a couple of days time, yet another thread will be started (perhaps this one will be entitled: 'Napoleon was brilliant') – and we can start this all over again.

I've done some research on Napoleon myself.

The myth of Napoleon is pretty interesting. That people still believe that he existed is the most fascinating aspect, I think.

Obviously the psychology of man needs some heroes to worship so we create them from natural elements. Brechtel198 is no different from other men in falling under the sway of his inherent need to believe.

Here is what I've dug up from Archbishop Whately:

"Napoleon is, says the writer, an impersonification of the sun.

1. Between the name Napoleon and Apollo, or Apoleon, the god of the sun, there is but a trifling difference; indeed, the seeming difference is lessened, if we take the spelling of his name from the column of the Place Vendôme, where it stands Néapoleó. But this syllable Ne prefixed to the name of the sun-god is of importance; like the rest of the name it is of Greek origin, and is νη or ναι, a particle of affirmation, as though indicating Napoleon as the very true Apollo, or sun.

His other name, Bonaparte, makes this apparent connection between the French hero and the luminary of the firmament conclusively certain. The day [126] has its two parts, the good and luminous portion, and that which is bad and dark. To the sun belongs the good part, to the moon and stars belongs the bad portion. It is therefore natural that Apollo or Né-Apoleón should receive the surname of Bonaparte.

2. Apollo was born in Delos, a Mediterranean island; Napoleon in Corsica, an island in the same sea. According to Pausanias, Apollo was an Egyptian deity; and in the mythological history of the fabulous Napoleon we find the hero in Egypt, regarded by the inhabitants with veneration, and receiving their homage.

3. The mother of Napoleon was said to be Letitia, which signifies joy, and is an impersonification of the dawn of light dispensing joy and gladness to all creation. Letitia is no other than the break of day, which in a manner brings the sun into the world, and "with rosy fingers opes the gates of Day." It is significant that the Greek name for the mother of Apollo was Leto. From this the Romans made the name Latona, which they gave to his mother. But Læto is the unused form of the verb lætor, and signified to inspire joy; it is from this unused form that the substantive Letitia is derived. The identity, then, of [127] the mother of Napoleon with the Greek Leto and the Latin Latona, is established conclusively.

4. According to the popular story, this son of Letitia had three sisters; and was it not the same with the Greek deity, who had the three Graces?

5. The modern Gallic Apollo had four brothers. It is impossible not to discern here the anthropomorphosis of the four seasons. But, it will be objected, the seasons should be females. Here the French language interposes; for in French the seasons are masculine, with the exception of autumn, upon the gender of which grammarians are undecided, whilst Autumnus in Latin is not more feminine than the other seasons. This difficulty is therefore trifling, and what follows removes all shadow of doubt.

Of the four brothers of Napoleon, three are said to have been kings, and these of course are, Spring reigning over the flowers, Summer reigning over the harvest, Autumn holding sway over the fruits. And as these three seasons owe all to the powerful influence of the Sun, we are told in the popular myth that the three brothers of Napoleon drew their authority from him, and received from him their kingdoms. But if it be added that, of the four [128] brothers of Napoleon, one was not a king, that was because he is the impersonification of Winter, which has no reign over anything. If, however, it be asserted, in contradiction, that the winter has an empire, he will be given the principality over snows and frosts, which, in the dreary season of the year, whiten the face of the earth. Well, the fourth brother of Napoleon is thus invested by popular tradition, commonly called history, with a vain principality accorded to him in the decline of the power of Napoleon. The principality was that of Canino, a name derived from cani, or the whitened hairs of a frozen old age,—true emblem of winter. To the eyes of poets, the forests covering the hills are their hair, and when winter frosts them, they represent the snowy locks of a decrepit nature in the old age of the year:—
"Cum gelidus crescit canis in montibus humor."

Consequently the Prince of Canino is an impersonification of winter;—winter whose reign begins when the kingdoms of the three fine seasons are passed from them, and when the sun is driven from his power by the children of the North, as the poets call the boreal winds. This is the origin of the fabulous [129] invasion of France by the allied armies of the North. The story relates that these invaders—the northern gales—banished the many-colored flag, and replaced it by a white standard. This too is a graceful, but, at the same time, purely fabulous account of the Northern winds driving all the brilliant colors from the face of the soil, to replace them by the snowy sheet.

6. Napoleon is said to have had two wives. It is well known that the classic fable gave two also to Apollo. These two were the moon and the earth. Plutarch asserts that the Greeks gave the moon to Apollo for wife, whilst the Egyptians attributed to him the earth. By the moon he had no posterity, but by the other he had one son only, the little Horus. This is an Egyptian allegory, representing the fruits of agriculture produced by the earth fertilized by the Sun. The pretended son of the fabulous Napoleon is said to have been born on the 20th of March, the season of the spring equinox, when agriculture is assuming its greatest period of activity.

7. Napoleon is said to have released France from the devastating scourge which terrorized over the country, the hydra of the revolution, as it was [130] popularly called. Who cannot see in this a Gallic version of the Greek legend of Apollo releasing Hellas from the terrible Python? The very name revolution, derived from the Latin verb revolvo, is indicative of the coils of a serpent like the Python.

8. The famous hero of the 19th century had, it is asserted, twelve Marshals at the head of his armies, and four who were stationary and inactive. The twelve first, as may be seen at once, are the signs of the zodiac, marching under the orders of the sun Napoleon, and each commanding a division of the innumerable host of stars, which are parted into twelve portions, corresponding to the twelve signs. As for the four stationary officers, immovable in the midst of general motion, they are the cardinal points.

9. It is currently reported that the chief of these brilliant armies, after having gloriously traversed the Southern kingdoms, penetrated North, and was there unable to maintain his sway. This too represents the course of the Sun, which assumes its greatest power in the South, but after the spring equinox seeks to reach the North; and after a three months' march towards the boreal regions, is driven back upon his traces following the sign of Cancer, a sign [131] given to represent the retrogression of the sun in that portion of the sphere. It is on this that the story of the march of Napoleon towards Moscow, and his humbling retreat, is founded.

10. Finally, the sun rises in the East and sets in the Western sea. The poets picture him rising out of the waters in the East, and setting in the ocean after his twelve hours' reign in the sky. Such is the history of Napoleon, coming from his Mediterranean isle, holding the reins of government for twelve years, and finally disappearing in the mysterious regions of the great Atlantic."

I was enjoying this where has the original poster gone? I always thought he was a tyrant but his army had nice uniforms which look good when they are painted in miniature.

<<I was enjoying this where has the original poster gone? I always thought he was a tyrant but his army had nice uniforms which look good when they are painted in miniature.>>

I've heard Brechtel called many things, but tyrant seems a bit harsh.

an anagram for Napoleon Bonaparte is
A bane on poor planet
and Adolf Hitler is
Drill of hate

just a coincidence I think not

ColonelToffeeApple is the most grounded man on the post.

Also, kinda seems a bit..myopic… to debate the morality of Napoleonic rule in the context of 21st century morality. Or even in the wake of the French Revoloution.

Ah, the Code Napoleon. A paragon of égalité.

'Perhaps Brechtel could tell us if these two articles from the Code really did apply across the whole of France or not?

L'exersise des droits civils est indépendant de la qualité de Citoyen, laquelle ne s'acquiert et ne se conserve que conformément à la loi constitutionnelle.

Tout Français jouira des droit civils.'

As they are part of the Code Civile, I would have to say yes.

I do apologize for taking so long to reply, but I have had two projects that needed my attention, along with a couple of lively discussions on the Civil War I was participating in.

B

'Yes Brecthel and Hitler was appointed to the Chancellorship of Germany LEGALY by Hindenberg on January 30, 1933, and on March 23, 1933 the enabling act was passed LEGALLY by the Reichstag (which superceded the Reichstag with the Chancell0r) ,and in 1934 the final consolidation came with the merging (LEGALLY) of the office of the Presidency and the Chancellor. So everything Hitler did was LEGAL. I am sure that was a great comfort to his victims and makes it all better.'

The old canard of comparison to Hitler which is an indicator of the bankruptcy of your argument.

Hitler, per JC Herold, destroyed the law. His 'Nuremberg Laws' against the Jews, for example, were unethical and immoral and were against German law. Hitler also suspended all civil rights and abolished an independent judiciary. So, your comparison is both illogical and incorrect.

B

‘In addition to the Civil Code, five other codes were drawn up. The Rural Code was never adopted; those which went into effect were a Code of Civil Procedure in 1806, a Commercial Code in 1807, a Code of Criminal Procedure in 1808, and a Penal Code in 1810. The Penal Code was both progressive and reactionary; reactionary in that it provided for severe and unjust penalties-among them branding, and the cutting off of a hand for parricide in addition to decapitation; progressive in its provision for minimum and maximum rather than fixed penalties. The Code of Criminal Procedure was reactionary in that it permitted arbitrary arrest and partially reestablished the secrecy of court proceedings that had prevailed during the ancient regime; the accused could no longer hear the testimony against him.'-93.'

This passage from Holtman is sufficient to explain what Napoleon could do as head of state. Thierry Lentz explains quite well why Napoleon was not a military dictator.

None of this has been proven incorrect by any posting here.

For further amplification I would recommend the book A History of Continental Criminal Procedure with Special Refernce to France by A. Esmein. It contains relevant referneces to French law of the Revolution, Consulate, and Empire which backs up Holtman's statement above.

The idea that Napoleon did not govern by the rule of law is incorrect. Napoleon did promulgate Imperial Decrees which were legal and in accordance with his powers as head of state.

And there were French laws passed in addition to the legal codes, just as there are in the US which are not listed specifically in the US Constitution, but are in accordance with it.

And it should be noted that Lincoln used presidential power during the crisis of the Civil War that were extraordinary, such as the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, that could not have been issued in peacetime.

What is also forgotten is that France was at war for most of Napoleon's tenure as head of state, and a state of war can influence how laws are both passed and implemented.

Nothing has been said or posted that proves that Napoleon's rule was not by the rule of law (of course, you cannot prove a negative…).

One of the problems is the issue of democracy and looking at and judging Napoleon's rule by the 'standard' of modern democracy and early 21st century standards.

There were no democracies in Europe ca 1800. The United States was not a democracy during the period (and a case can be made that the US isn't one now because the president is not directly elected by the people). The US was born a republic, as Franklin commented after the Constitution was passed. Great Britain was not a democracy during the period and parliament and the 'elections' were corrupt which wasn't addressed and repaired until 1832.

And a definite case can be made that Napoleon as head of state was head and shoulders above his fellow heads of state-Alexander was a patricide who was afraid of his own nobility and was a thorough autocrat; Frederick William was a near-nonentity who did away with the work of the reformers after the wars were done and Prussia land-grabbed during the Congress of Vienna, taking more territory in Germany than anyone else grabbed (look at a map of Prussia in 1808 and compare it with Prussia in 1816). Francis I was not a strong ruler, dominated finally by Metternich and treating his own brother, Charles, shabbily after the 1809 defeat after Charles loyal and devoted service, and Francis' treatment of Napoleon's son was deplorable.

Against those heads of state, Napoleon comes out quite well and if the civil accomplishments of Napoleon is matched against his fellow heads of state, Napoleon comes out far ahead.

B

'Here is an example from an "A Level" exam paper from about 5 years ago; The students had to read the sources and answer the questions.
"SOURCE 2
(From a letter of Napoleon to Marshal Berthier, 7 September 1807, about an incident in French-occupied Prussia)
You must be sure to inform Marshal Soult, by special messenger, of the incident at Konigsberg, where two actors, appearing on the stage as French officers, were hissed by the audience. You will tell Marshal Soult that I have demanded satisfaction from the King of Prussia for this insult, and this requires that the two chief culprits be shot. Marshal Soult is to inform his Prussian opposite number of the base and despicable character of which I have had to complain, and of the precise terms in which I have demanded satisfaction." Rule of Law? Or Rule by Decree?'

Interesting. Did you find this already translated or did you translate it yourself?

Here is the version published by JC Herold in The Mind of Napoleon, which is somewhat different (I haven't found the original in French):

'Letter to Berthier, 1807:'

'Send a special courier to Marshal Soult to acquaint him with the event that has occurred at Konigsberg, where two actors, who appeared on the stage in the roles of French officers, have been hissed. You will inform Marshal Soult that I have demanded satisfaction from the king of Prussia for this insult and that I have requested him to have the chief guilty parties shot.'

And is there a reply to this request and what was the final outcome?

B

Merriam Webster defines tyrant thus:
Definition of TYRANT
1
a : an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution
b : a usurper of sovereignty
2
a : a ruler who exercises absolute power oppressively or brutally
b : one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power
1.b certainly fits. I submit the great man was indeed a "tyrant". Drafting great swaths of his male population to fight his wars of conquest in Spain and Russia might make 2b fit as well but that is a judgement call.
Oxford English Dictionary agrees:
Definition of tyrant
noun
1a cruel and oppressive ruler:
the tyrant was deposed by popular demonstrations
a person exercising power or control in a cruel, unreasonable, or arbitrary way:
her father was a tyrant and a bully
(especially in ancient Greece) a ruler who seized power without legal right.
2a tyrant flycatcher.
Slavery and Apartheid were both legal. Legal does not equal "good".'

Yet, you have given no examples of Napoleon being a 'tyrant' except using conscription, which is not an example of tyranny. Besides, Napoleon used the Jourdan conscription law of 1798, and didn't implement one of his own.

Again, conscription isn't tyranny by any stretch of the imagination.

B

I presume crossing into foreign countries and kidnapping people whom you then shoot after a show trial is an example of 'the rule of law.' If so, that's not a country I for one, want to live in.

"(especially in ancient Greece) a ruler who seized power without legal right."

By which legal right did he seize power?

I'm content with Kevin's earlier admission that Napoleon governed by decree, just like any other absolute monarch.

Since Kevin obviously has no intention of answering direct questions about the specific laws, nor providing the relevant citations from French laws despite being asked six times to do so, that will have to do.

'I presume crossing into foreign countries and kidnapping people whom you then shoot after a show trial is an example of 'the rule of law.' If so, that's not a country I for one, want to live in.'

Sort of like chasing a wanted terrorist into a foreign country without their knowing of it and killing the terrorist, isn't it?

D'Enghien had committed treason against the French state.

And part of the problem was the Bourbons with the support of the British government were attempted more than once to have Napoleon assassinated. How about that country to live in? Or, we can talk about the preemptive strikes against the Danes as well as the terror-rocketing of Copenhagen…

B

'By which legal right did he seize power?'

Both the government and the country were either falling apart or were not functioning properly.

And one of the Directors (Barras) wanted to bring back the Bourbons, and attempted to enlist Napoleon in that plot, which Napoleon refused. Bringing back the Bourbons would have negated all of the improvements of the Revolution and would certainly have 'betrayed' the Revolution and the people of France.

Seems to me if there is an emergency situation, emergency measures are called for, such as some of Lincoln's actions during the American Civil War, such as the threatened reprisal shootings of Confederate prisoners and the suspension of habeas corpus…

B

'I'm content with Kevin's earlier admission that Napoleon governed by decree, just like any other absolute monarch.
Since Kevin obviously has no intention of answering direct questions about the specific laws, nor providing the relevant citations from French laws despite being asked six times to do so, that will have to do.'

Issuing decrees was at the discretion of the head of state, just as the US president has the option of issuing executive orders when necessary.

And you've been given enough information to answer your questions. And since your bias towards Napoleon is common knowledge, I would submit that no matter what is offered, you won't be satisfied.

You haven't offered any specific evidence to prove that Napoleon did not govern by the rule of law, and your mind is made up that he did not. We'll have to agree to disagree.

By the way, have you taken a look at the reference I posted?

B