"Privilege and Persecution in Early C19th Britain at the ..." Topic

…Time of Napoleon.

"That was what Shelley wrote in Italy when he heard the disturbing news of the Peterloo Massacre. In Manchester, at least eleven innocent people were killed and hundreds injured after a crowd of people desperate for political representation and reform, were cut down by brutal mounted militia at the behest of British magistrates acting with the full authority of the state.

Far away, on the tiny island of Saint Helena, Napoleon was dying a slow, lingering death from arsenic poisoning and had little time left to live. According to most English history books, Napoleon was the scourge of the age, the greatest danger to this country, and responsible for all the wars and bloodshed that had ravaged Europe for two decades. Nothing could be further from the truth.

British subjects were sabred and cut down in cold blood that dreadful year not because of Napoleon, but because the wealthy oligarchy that controlled the country and had paid for other powers to attack France were determined to maintain and even extend their control over the benighted population. The so-called ‘sceptred isle' was in fact being crushed under the mace of divine right and privilege…"
More here
link

Amicalement
Armand

11 deaths at Peterloo at the hands of the British Government v 3.5 to 6 million during the Napoleonic wars caused largely by the great man himself. Have to admit it's a convincing argument.

"Crushed under the mace…"

No guessing who that guy votes for.

Yup – typical North London leafy suburb liberal wishy washy pinko liberal grandstanding!

Napoleon was dying a slow, lingering death from arsenic poisoning

No he wasn't.

The writer probably also thinks striking miners were right to throw bricks at the police and kill taxi drivers in 1985.

…3.5 to 6 million during the Napoleonic wars caused largely by the great man himself. Have to admit it's a convincing argument.

Who broke the Treaty of Amiens?

The French were attacked by the Coalitions, which were financed by Great Britain, in 1805, 1806, and 1809. 1807 was a continuation by Russia of the 1806 war.

Napoleon found out in late 1806 that his ally, Spain, was planning to turn on him if he had lost in Prussia.

Alexander decided on war against France as early as 1810.

So, now who was responsible for the continuation of the wars of 1803-1815?

And if you actually take a look at the repressive actions against the British people by parliament during the period, which were worse than anything of the kind Napoleon ever did, the thesis, while incorrect in part, is valid.

Peterloo was mainly the fault of the local yoemanry. Not some plot to keep the working man down.

No? What happened to French people who protested or resisted conscription?
What happened to imperial subjects who mocked the emperor?
What happened to hapless Aristiocrats unfortunate enough to be bourbon?
What happened to French subjects that didn't like the presence of French troops in their area?

Perhaps you can answer and document your own questions…

'Napoleon was a destroyer, but not on a monstrous scale. In World War I, in four years, 1914-1918, 1,400,000 Frenchmen were killed, an average of 350,000 per year-more than were killed and died in hospital during the Napoleonic Wars.'

'As for the enemies of France: Their casualties, until 1812, were much higher, perhaps by two or three times. Between 1812 and 1814, however, the Allies went far toward restoring the balance. To hold Napoleon responsible for these deaths, though, would be to ignore the rapaciousness of other European rulers, all of whom, except for George III of England, were allied with Napoleon at one time or another.'-Owen Connelly, The French Revolution and Napoleonic Era, 233.

From the Historical Dictionary of Napoleonic France 1799-1815, edited by Owen Connelly with the Associate Editors being Harold Parker, Peter Becker, and June Burton, 220-222. The article on Domestic Great Britain was written by Carolyn White:

'When Napoleon Bonaparte seized power in France in 1799, the people of the British Isles were ending an unusually riotous decade. There had been an uprising in Ireland, a mutiny in the navy, and foot riots and industrial strikes. George III had been booed in the streets of London, and William Pitt, who had headed the king's government since 1783, had seen the windows of his house smashed by a London crowd. There was economic distress created by bad harvests or the social dislocation of industrialization.'

'The hubbub of radical voices, particularly after the beginning of the war with France (1793), had helped strengthen Pitt's hold on the government since sedition and treasonable practices seemed rife in the land. Notwithstanding the eloquent liberal voice of Charles James Fox, the Whig leader, Crown and Parliament, judges and justices of the peace cooperated with Pitt to restore order and patriotism. Repressive legislation was passed to restrain the radical press and prohibit seditious meetings; in 1794 Pitt got the writ of habeas corpus suspended. A broader definition of treason was framed to curb criticism of king, parliament, and constitution. Radical leaders were arrested and tried for high treason. In Scotland they received harsh sentences of death or transportation. In England, however, the trials of Thomas Hardy, J Horne Tooke, and John Thewall…ended in their acquittals. Popular agitation in 1798 brought more repression. The Corresponding Society was outlawed; by 1799 the radicals were mute and dispirited. Nevertheless, the government delivered a blow against workers' associations with the Combination Acts (1799, 1800), stifling the trades union impulse…'

'Personal insecurity magnified all other fears, such as the threat of a French invasion. The commercial war with France brought inflation, high prices, and bankruptcies. War accelerated the process of mechanization, bitterly resented by Luddite machine breakers. The incidence of violence rose alarmingly and reached even to the lobby of the House of Commons, where Spencer Perceval, the prime minister, was assassinated.'

So it looks like civil liberties, such as free speech and freedom of the press were suspended, as was habeas corpus. The right to assemble was attacked, and the definition of treason increased in order to prosecute those who disagreed with the government. That certainly looks like a police state to me…

Oh here we go again.

For what it is worth, the Midsummer Runners, aided by the Sewon and Soforths have often clashed with Luddites emboldened by foreign agents provocateur on my games table.

That wily Agent Lefebvre always seem to slip away just as Giggers and his dragoons are closing in.

Mind you the Sewon and Soforths have also intervened to prevent the land owners from tearing down their tennant's shanties as well.

Crown forces have to tread a fine line in Midsummer.

Bob

Articles like this that contain more pejoratives than facts always lead me to suspect the author isn't as much interested in the truth as in stirring up a group of people.

"….the trials of Thomas Hardy, J Horne Tooke, and John Thewall…ended in their acquittals."

That tends to indicate that it was anything but a police state. I would be intrigued to know which of the Scottish radical leaders were sentenced to death; three were sentenced to 14 years transportation but who was executed?

It is also worth noting that the suspension of habeas corpus was lifted in 1795; the suspension was a response to a particular set of circumstances.

Once again, it seems that General Bonaparte's apologists will twist any set of facts into something unrecognisable in order to make their hero look like anything other than the deeply unpleasant and autocratic dictator that he was.

The article is not only about Peterloo …deepens a situation of life in England during those years that it is difficult to contradict …. comparison with Napoleon's France is overwhelmingly negative…

Amicalement
Armand

And I'm sure life under Napoleon was all Unicorns, and rainbows, and the streets gold.

John

'Haters gotta hate.'

One thing that can always be counted on here is that someone will post a disingenuous comment regarding 'apologists', 'heroes', and 'dictators' without regard to either historical facts or the historical record.

Armand,

Whether or not people agree with you is irrelevant. Keep on posting your finds as they all add to the discussion and body of knowledge.

Well done.

"Lovers gotta Love"

The odious Corsican Dictator's giddy harem are vying for his attention…

The virtue signalling, white knight snowflakes wouldn't know historical verisimilitude if it smacked them in the face.

Yes Mr Kiley, let us examine the historical record and historical facts.

While Britain may not have been the model of a modern democracy, it was a far better country in which to live than any other European nation. Although there was gross inequality, some quite severe restrictions on personal liberty, and a very limited voting franchise, these limitations were far less than those in mainland Europe, including France and its empire.

Britain had habeas corpus (except for a few months in 1794-95), the right to trial by jury (Hardy, Tooke and Thewall were all acquitted), a reasonably free press, reasonably free speech, and a legislative system that was, at least to an extent, democratic, thus preventing one individual imposing laws at whim.

France, on the other hand, did not have functioning habeas corpus, did not have a functioning right to trial by jury, had a heavily controlled and censored press, did not have the right to free speech, and was not in any way democratic, the latter not really been surprising when power had been taken by a coup. Laws were frequently made by imperial decree, imprisonment without trial was common, and the government, in other words Bonaparte, could imprison or execute people on a whim.

I am aware that Bonaparte was massively successful in plebiscites; however, that is typical of most dictatorships, where votes of 90%+ in favour of the dictator are not unusual.

Your rose tinted view of Bonaparte and his empire is just not supported by the historical facts. While France may not have been any worse than most other nations in mainland Europe in terms of the issues listed above, it was certainly no better.

You might do well to talk to French people about Bonaparte and his regime; he is not remembered positively here.

Well said, Aberrant.
It's always nice to hear from someone actually from the country being discussed, When I was working in Toulouse, helping make the A380 super-jumbo aircraft with Airbus, I spent many a great weekend in Aquitaine.
Watched Football, and, surprisingly Rugby(?) in Bordeaux, I was quite the Girondierre! (sure thats not correct)

John

John 54,

I am not from France; my mother was French but I am a transplanted Brit who moved out here to live on an inherited smallholding when I retired.

It is warmer than the UK, the pace of life is slower, the wine is finer, the food is far better, and the rugby is excellent.

I am not far from Bordeaux, which is an interesting city and has some wonderful restaurants.

The antics of Mr Kiley and his puppy are amusing; I understand the former's motivation but I suspect that one would need to be a shrink to understand the puppy.

Anyway, let us see what "facts" the ex-US Marine comes back with.

Oh, I almost forgot…….LOL.

The wine and food were indeed excellent, as was the Rugby. apologies for my assumption.

As to the Brech/puppy issue, I concur, er, lol. 😋

John

My post was a bit 'tongue in cheek' Apologies if that wasn't patently obvious.

There is no place, for 'Tongue in Cheek' 'humour' or the worst, 'but really, who cares?' on the Nappy boards, now, go away, and think about what you've done……….

John

By John 54,

Please do not apologise for assuming that I am French; I just wish that the locals here would do the same:). However, I fear that I will always be l'anglais.

Eric

Anyway, let us see what "facts" the ex-US Marine comes back with.

Sorry, but I'm not an 'ex-US Marine'-there is no such thing in the American service. There are Marines, former Marines, and retired Marines, the last is the category I am in.

At least you capitalized 'Marine.' You get one kudo for that one. Well done.

While Britain may not have been the model of a modern democracy, it was a far better country in which to live than any other European nation. Although there was gross inequality, some quite severe restrictions on personal liberty, and a very limited voting franchise, these limitations were far less than those in mainland Europe, including France and its empire.
Britain had habeas corpus (except for a few months in 1794-95), the right to trial by jury (Hardy, Tooke and Thewall were all acquitted), a reasonably free press, reasonably free speech, and a legislative system that was, at least to an extent, democratic, thus preventing one individual imposing laws at whim.
France, on the other hand, did not have functioning habeas corpus, did not have a functioning right to trial by jury, had a heavily controlled and censored press, did not have the right to free speech, and was not in any way democratic, the latter not really been surprising when power had been taken by a coup. Laws were frequently made by imperial decree, imprisonment without trial was common, and the government, in other words Bonaparte, could imprison or execute people on a whim.
I am aware that Bonaparte was massively successful in plebiscites; however, that is typical of most dictatorships, where votes of 90%+ in favour of the dictator are not unusual.
Your rose tinted view of Bonaparte and his empire is just not supported by the historical facts. While France may not have been any worse than most other nations in mainland Europe in terms of the issues listed above, it was certainly no better.
You might do well to talk to French people about Bonaparte and his regime; he is not remembered positively here.

Great Britain was not a democracy at all but a constitutional monarchy with a corrupt parliament which allowed both ‘rotten' and ‘pocket' boroughs and the government was one of the upper class, not one of the population as a whole.

Using the ‘democracy' argument is a strawman as there were none in Europe, nor was there one in the United States, which was a constitutional republic.

You might wish to read both the Code Civile and the Penal Code which are available on the Napoleon Series if you're interested. The French Penal Code was less severe than the British example.

I posted evidence of what I was referring to, which you have appeared to ignore (at which I am not surprised).
The repressive measures passed by parliament in England, along with their treatment of the Irish, are much worse than anything Napoleon did along those lines, and he never did anything such as you propose on a mere ‘whim.'

Napoleon also established two organizations to ensure honesty among his governmental officials. The first were the Inspecteurs aux Revues to inspect the regiments and ensure honesty in the regimental records such as pay, clothing, and property accounts. In the first year of their existence, 1804, they found almost 50,000 false returns, and those officers whose responsibility it was paid a heavy price with their careers.

The second were the Auditors of the Council of State which investigated more complicated frauds at the highest levels of the government and army. These men were hand-picked and they were also carefully trained to become high-level civil servants.

Did the British government have any such organizations to investigate fraud and other crimes in the government?
The British government also sponsored and funded training camps in England for the Bourbons and other royalists who plotted against France and attempted to assassinate Napoleon on at least two occasions.

Napoleon was a lawgiver and reformer who didn't build palaces but did construct harbors, bridges, highways (including three across the Alps), and canals. He established a government office to oversee and protect France's natural resources and ensured basic civil rights, freedom of religion, along with being the first European ruler to grant the Jews full citizenship. He also improved hospitals, orphanages, and public sanitation.

From A Narrative of a Three Years' Residence in France…from the year 1802-1805, Volume III, pages 324, 400 by Anne Plumptre:

'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 peace still subsisted between the two countries. 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 any thing that the others knew to the contrary-yet this idea had no restraint upon them.'

Volume I can be found here:

link

The repressive measures passed by parliament in England, along with their treatment of the Irish

I'm not sure an American should be lecturing anyone about their treatment of indigenous populations mind.

The discussion is about Great Britain and the French Empire.

If you wish to discuss the United States I believe that we should change forums…I'd be more than happy to discuss the Indian Wars and slavery with you if you like.

Well… it could have been an enlightening forum before it got carried away with some mudslinging.

This is the Napoleonic forum. Dunno why, but it's been … less than civilized for as long as I've been a member. Almost as nasty as the old Current Affairs boards were, in fact.

Oh here we go again.

Indeed. I've seen some of these quotes, verbatim, just pasted onto threads for years now.

"along with being the first European ruler to grant the Jews full citizenship"

I have seen Kevin post this a number of times, and be corrected each time. The fact of course is that the French national assembly granted full citizenship to Jews in 1791. Napoleon actually rescinded many of their rights, restored special fees and rules against their freedom of movement, and even nullified debts held with Jewish lenders.

I mean come on, this is basic Wikipedia-level factoids here, friends:

link

"He… ensured basic civil rights,

A bit of Google-Fu turned up this, In which the question arises: if Napoleon guaranteed the civil liberties of his own constitution then why did he arrest and punish so many people for exercising those liberties?

TMP link

Unfortunately that thread dissolves into some hysteria regarding Hitler (a usual suspect), and more surprisingly, Jhengiz Khan (!) Read at your own risk!

It appears you rely on Wikipedia and other dubious sources without posting or finding anything of substance that supports or helps the discussion.

So, perhaps you could add something of value by actually looking up material in credible primary and secondary source material?

Don't you have any source material to hand? Or are you relying solely on dubious sources in the internet?

I would suggest looking up material in Owen Connelly's works, and such authors as Louis Bergeron, Michael Broers, Vincent Cronin, and Robert Holtman along with primary sources such as Baron Fain and Marchand.

Then we can have a discussion instead of the usual mediocre 'material' that you post.

Kevin, I'm not clear on your position. Are you saying that the Wikipedia article is erroneous? If so, then specifically in what way?

I thought this was a rather simple question: you claimed that Napoleon was "the first European ruler to grant the Jews full citizenship"

That is false. French Jews were granted full citizenship in 1791. Napoleon actually rescinded many of their rights.

Do you admit that what you said is incorrect?

Two things:

First, Wikipedia is not a reliable reference. Even high and middle school history teachers in the US don't allow its use as a reference, not to mention college or grad school.

And no, I am not wrong on the question of full citizenship of the Jews in France.

If you have a credible reference on that subject, then post it. If not, your point is a disagreement, and not definitive.

If you have a credible reference on that subject, then post it.

Fine. How about the text of the law itself. Please note the date:

link

Decree of the National Assembly, 27 September 1791:

The National Assembly, considering that the conditions necessary to be a French citizen and to become an active citizen are fixed by the Constitution, and that every man meeting the said conditions, who swears the civic oath, and engages himself to fulfill all the duties that the Constitution imposes, has the right to all of the advantages that the Constitution assures;

Revokes all adjournments, reservations, and exceptions inserted into the preceding decrees relative to Jewish individuals who will swear the civic oath which will be regarded as a renunciation of all the privileges and exceptions introduced previously in their favor.

--

There, no more Wikipedia. Back to the point:

You have on many occasions claimed that Napoleon was "the first European ruler to grant the Jews full citizenship"

That is false. French Jews were granted full citizenship in 1791. Napoleon actually rescinded many of their rights.

Do you admit that what you said is incorrect?

Is this the Wikipedia article to which you referred?

If so, it proves my point:

'Napoleon Bonaparte of the First French Empire enacted laws that emancipated European Jews from old laws restricting them to ghettos, as well as the many laws that limited Jews' rights to property, worship, and careers. There are many contradictory historical viewpoints and documents concerning Napoleon's intentions and feelings of the Jewish community, but the increase in social standing of Jews in France and surrounding parts of Europe during and after his rule is undeniable.'

Is this the Wikipedia article to which you referred?

I gave you the link to the Wikipedia article. But you dismissed it because – according to you – Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Odd that you now claim it "proves" your point?

You're delaying. This is really simple, Kevin. You demanded a primary source, so now you have it: the text of the 1791 law granting the Jews full citizenship is staring you in the face.

(As it has several times in the past when you've made this claim and been corrected).

You claimed that Napoleon was "the first European ruler to grant the Jews full citizenship"

That is false. French Jews were granted full citizenship in 1791. Napoleon actually rescinded many of their rights.

Do you admit that what you said is incorrect?

No, I don't believe so. The law posted has reservations listed, which Napoleon didn't do with his policy towards the Jews.

So, according to the 1791 law, there were restrictions and conditions and if the French Jews didn't agree, then citizenship was denied.

Isn't that correct?

In short, read what you posted.

Is there anything else now?

"So, according to the 1791 law, there were restrictions and conditions and if the French Jews didn't agree, then citizenship was denied."

What restrictions and conditions? The text of the law – as you can see above – makes it very clear that those previous restrictions and conditions are revoked.

Moreover, the opposite of what you claimed is true: Napoleon rescinded the rights of French Jews by issuing his "Infamous Decrees."

—

This is a test of character. You've made a factual assertion. It is wrong. It has been disproved by showing you the primary source.

I think you would win some much-needed approval on this forum if you demonstrated the basic honesty, integrity, and humility to admit that you were wrong.

This should be interesting.

Give him a chance.

LOL

Wow, he did a runner. I feel a bit like Charlie Brown with the football. I was certain that this time was finally going to be the time… But no.

I confess that I find him to be a quite extraordinary person. I've never encountered anybody so completely resistant to facts and so desperately unwilling to admit that he was wrong, even when presented with the most simple, plain, irrefutable facts.

Well, lots of interesting points here, but I find it hard to believe the abysmally written blog post, or whatever it is, linked in the OP, could be the subject of serious discussion.

The undergraduate sneers of a moralising narcissist who things he has discovered that our forefathers lived in a world where there was injustice and inequality- Even more than there is today.

He seems to think that simply attaching footnote numbers adds gravitas to his maunderings. I wonder if he thinks anyone will bother to check them.

As far as I am concerned anyone who peppers his text with scare 'quotes' because he hasn't the wit to think accurately or choose his words with care, is not worth the time of day, whether he leans to left or right, has a crush on Napoleon or a hard-on for the Duke.

Good Lord – Apparently he writes whole books Saints preserve us!

"In this book Napoleon is shown for what and who he was and not as the caricature described by many bigoted historians, especially of the British persuasion. He was not short, he was often very generous and he seldom forgot a friend, particularly in the early days before he was famous. France was attacked in 1805, 1806, 1807, 1809 and 1814 – yet it is always Napoleon who is blamed for these wars."

Something curiously familiar in tone there….

FINS

LOL

Just 'saying'…

I think you would win some much-needed approval on this forum if you demonstrated the basic honesty, integrity, and humility to admit that you were wrong.

Instead of the usual trumpery, as shown above, you might at least try to rise above the level of the playground. I had quite a few middle school students who demonstrated more maturity in their responses in class.

If you don't know the definition of 'trumpery' it might benefit you to look it up.

Regarding the Jews in France with the above 1791 decree, it should be noted that it provided for the emancipation of the French Jews and not full citizenship.

Joseph II of Austria had done something along the same lines regarding Austrian Jews.

The 1791 decree did not address the state payment of Jewish clergy, which was denied (unlike the Catholic and Protestant clergy in France). They were free to practice their religion freely, but they were not considered as Frenchmen and did not assimilate into French society, though the Jews had many French sympathizers who wished for the Jews to be accepted as Frenchman with all the rights and privileges that came with that right.

Napoleon changed that situation with the summons in 1806 to convene the Assembly of Jewish Notables which was to begin to transform the Jews into French citizens. Napoleon demanded that they demonstrate 'their worthiness for citizenship' which was done. Napoleon's goal was the economic, social, and political assimilation of French Jewry which made them full citizens of France.

Theh 1791 decree was a first step, but it was incomplete and Napoleon's actions, some helpful some not, established a 'blueprint' for the successful emergence and acceptance as French citizens.

It should be noted that many actions, administrative and legal, were begun during the Revolution but were many times ignored or rendered incomplete by incompetent revolutionary governments and it took the efficiency of the consular and imperial governments to complete them satisfactorily.

Additionally, Napoleon ensured the 'civic emancipation' of the Jews of western and central Europe in addition to his work for the French Jewish community.

But no answer to the question, eh, Brech?

And, I didn't see any 'Trumpery' from Garth, he posted a differing view to you, backed it up with evidence, then asked you to answer. Instead you come back with, well, nothing really. I have no doubt your a clever bloke, but sadly, you seem to be be doing what a lot of other posters with, er, 'history' with you on these boards, say you always do; i.e, cherry picking sources that agree with you, demeaning others who call you out, then scuttling off.
C'mon Brech, answer Garth's evidence. And lay off with all the 'have you actually read the book'? 'Look up the meaning of (insert word here)' it makes you look extremely supercilious.

John the Marplop

Oh, you did! Hahahaha.

John