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

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.

No, it stipulates very clearly 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;"

It removes any/all special exceptions for Jews. They now only have to swear the oath, like everybody else, and they are citizens like everybody else.

Once again – Napoleon introduced restrictions on the Jews and rescinded many of their rights with his so-called "Infamous Decrees."

Napoleon was not, as you said, "the first European ruler to grant the Jews full citizenship." That is an error. In fact, it is the opposite of the truth. He inherited a state that already had Jewish citizens, and he revoked several of their rights.

These are not opinions or interpretations; they are simple facts.

Napoleon's "Infamous Decrees" in 1808 imposed the following restrictions on Jews:

> He restricted their movement and rights to settle in certain departments of France.

> He nullified debts owed to Jewish lenders by certain categories of people, such as women and soldiers.

> He nullified all debts owed to Jews that carried more than 10% rate of interest.

> He required Jews to purchase special business licenses that non-Jews were not required to purchase.

> A Jew who was drafted into the army could not purchase a substitute.

> He stipulated that Jewish citizens could not appeal legal issues to their mayors, as normal French citizens did. Rather, Jews had to appeal to the national Jewish consistory, which reported to Napoleon.

> He forbade Jews from lending for a period of 10 years, to be reviewed in 1818.

> He placed limitations on their religious services, on the number and criteria of rabbis, and even on the names they could choose for their children.

> In several categories of civil trial, Jews were presumed guilty unless they could prove themselves innocent. (I think that's the biggest change, since it means that they are literally second-class citizens now and don't have equal protection under the law anymore).

—

This was not meant to be a comprehensive analysis, just a brief summary. Those are the main changes that Napoleon made to Jewish citizenship in France. He substantially rolled-back the rights they had under the Republic.

Again, these are not opinions or interpretations. They are simply facts, like saying that Herman Melville wrote Moby Dick, or that Pearl Harbor happened on a Sunday.

Do you acknowledge that these are facts?

This is the link I offered the first time. It is just a brief summary of the Infamous Decrees. If you want meatier and more scholarly work on the subject, you could read Alexandre Grab or any number of other scholars who have written about 19th century European Jewry:

link

I didn't know this Garth, thanks very much.

Great posting – surly pasted and copied – most likley brech will bring up this subject again and again – whatever the topic of discussion.

"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times….." "There were a king with a large jaw and a queen with plain on the throne of England. There were a king with a large jaw and a queen with a fair face on the throne of France…" "Spiritual revelation had been revealed to England then, as at this. France less favoured on the whole as to matters spiritual, rolled with exceeding smoothness downhill, fast!"

Instead of relying on a tertiary source such as Wikipedia, which is not a credible source, perhaps you might find the following helpful:

-Napoleon et les Juifs by R Anchel.
-Le Grand Sanhedrin de Napoleon, edited by B Blumenkranz.
-The Sephardic Jews of Bordeaux by Frances Malino.
-Napoleon, the Jews and the Sanhedrin by S Schwarzfuchs.

And you can find a short summary on pages 266-267 by Frances Malino in the Historical Dictionary of Napoleonic France, 1799-1815 edited by Owen Connelly, Harold Parker, Peter Becker and June Burton.

Instead of just name-dropping some books, perhaps it would be helpful just to answer direct questions. After all, as you yourself said:

" I would suggest that if you disagree with something posted, support your position with actual material or at least name a source. Suggesting to someone to read a publication is not support for a particular point of view."

(Kevin Kiley's words, on this thread: TMP link

So: Yes or No: Do you acknowledge that the following are historical facts:

1. The French National Assembly granted Jews full citizenship in September 1791.

2. Napoleon revoked many of their rights by imposing the penalties that I listed above.

It's a very simple question, no need to keep evading. I'm just asking:

Do you acknowledge that these are facts?

What are the errors in the article please Kevin?

I don't possess those tomes, nor the referenced works in the article, which includes at least one of yours.

I'm not evading anything. I am disagreeing. And if you have read my last posting from yesterday, you have my opinions and position on the subject.

And Wikipedia, again, is not a valid source to support your opinions.

The bottom line is: Napoleon was instrumental in granting French Jewry full citizenship. That is the issue. The 1791 decree, as I have posted, granted emancipation which is not the same thing.

And I posted excellent references on the subject and if you are actually interested in historical facts, perhaps you should get the books and read them instead of relying on an online 'source' that has little or no vetting involved.

In short, your source is suspect and your continued vehemence and trumpery is distasteful.

Wikipedia is just an easy way to show people there's a brief summary available, drawn from historical sources, rather than telling them to go read some list of books. If we were arguing over who wrote Moby Dick, I'd show you the Wiki page first, because for any sane person that would end the argument.

And if you have read my last posting from yesterday, you have my opinions and position on the subject.

I wasn't asking for your opinion. I'm asking whether or not you're willing to acknowledge the existence of historical facts. If you'd answered that, then I wouldn't be asking.

I'm not evading anything. I am disagreeing.

You're disagreeing with what? Are you saying that you deny that these are historical facts?

1. The French National Assembly granted Jews full citizenship in September 1791.

2. Napoleon revoked many of their rights by imposing the penalties of the "Infamous Decree" that I listed above.

It's a very simple question, and one which doesn't require any sort of opinion. The law of the French Assembly has been shown to you. The substance of the "Infamous Decrees" has been listed and is available to you.

Do you deny that they existed?

Do you acknowledge or deny that these are facts?

Decree of 30 May 1806

‘These circumstances [regarding the alleged conditions in Alsace] have acquainted Us with the urgent need to revive, among those Our subjects who profess the Jewish religion, that sense of civic morality which unfortunately has been blunted in too many of them by the degraded status in which they have always been kept. To maintain or restore that status does not enter into Our intentions.'

‘In order to accomplish this purpose, We have resolved to call an assembly of the foremost Jews and to communicate Our intentions to them through commissioners whom We shall nominate to that end. These commissioners will at the same time receive the Jews' proposals concerning the most expedient methods of reviving the exercise of useful arts and professions among their brethren, so that the shameful practices by which many of them have earned their livelihood through the generations may be replaced by honorable industriousness.'

-Napoleon

Note to the Minister of the Interior, 23 August 1806

‘Not since the capture of Jerusalem by Titus have so many enlightened men belonging to the religion of Moses been able to assemble in one place. Dispersed and persecuted, the Jews have been subjected either to punitive taxation, or to enforced abjuration of their faith, or to other obligations and concessions equally opposed to their interests and religion. Present circumstances are in all respects unlike those prevailing in any earlier age. The Jews are not expected to abandon their religion or to submit to any change that would violate it either in the letter or the spirit.'

‘During the persecution of the Jews and during the periods when they went into hiding in order to escape persecution, various kinds of doctrines and customs came into existence. The rabbis took it upon themselves to interpret the principles of their faith whenever there was need for clarification. But the right to religious legislation cannot be exercised by individuals; it must be exercised by a general congress of Jews legally and freely assembled, including members of the Spanish and Portuguese, Italian, German, and French communities and representing the Jews of more than three-fourths of Europe.'

‘Consequently, it appears that the first thing to be done is to constitute the assembly now meeting in Paris into a Great Sanhedrin whose acts will take their place alongside the Talmud as articles of faith and as principles of religious legislation.'

‘When this has been accomplished, all Jews of whatever nation are to be invited to send representatives to Paris and to put their wisdom at the disposal of the deliberations of the Great Sanhedrin. Accordingly, all the synagogues of Europe are to be notified by some form of proclamation. This notification shall be officially addressed to the synagogues of France. The replies that will be made to the questions put before the Great Sanhedrin shall be converted into theological rulings or precepts in such a manner that they shall have the authority of ecclesiastic and religious law and shall constitute a second legislation of the Jews. This second legislation, while preserving the essential character of the Mosaic Law, shall be adapted to the present situation of the Jews and to modern ways and customs.'-Napoleon

‘Acknowledging, as the assembly has done, that Frenchmen and Jews are brothers, the Sanhedrin shall lay down this principle: that the Jews are the brothers of all the inhabitants of those countries where they are afforded not merely toleration but also protection and where they are admitted to the exercise of all the privileges attached to political and civil existence. In this respect, the Sanhedrin shall stress the difference between French and Italian legislation and the legislation in other countries.'-Napoleon, 23 August 1806.

‘The Sanhedrin shall forbid usury toward Frenchmen and toward the inhabitants of any country where the Jews enjoy full civil rights. It shall put this interpretation upon the Mosaic Law by stating that the Jews must regard all places where they are citizens as they would regard Jerusalem; that they are strangers only in those places where the law of the land subjects them to persecution and vexatious treatment; and that is only in the last-named countries that their religious law may tolerate illicit gains. Once this point has been settled by the Sanhedrin, an attempt should be made to study the question whether efficacious methods can be found to restrain and repress their habitual propensity to shady deals, their organized system of usury and fraud.'

‘All this is intended merely to serve as a directive to the commissioners. They will understand what is wanted of them, and they will start out by finding the means of accomplishing it. They will confer particularly with the most influential members of the assembly. They will declare that I am pleased by the zeal that animates its members. They will impress on them that these are extraordinary circumstances and that I wish to make certain by all available means that the rights which have been restored to the Jewish people shall not prove illusory, so that they may find Jerusalem in France.-Napoleon, 23 August 1806.

Napoleon's goal was to assimilate the Jewish population in France as full citizens and to bring their business practices in line with French law.

For Napoleon's actions before he became French head of state and his experience with the Jewish people outside of France, which began with the Egyptian expedition in 1798, see Napoleon and the Jews by Franz Kobler.

"Napoleon demanded that they demonstrate 'their worthiness for citizenship'

That begs a few questions….

My God, why must you stretch this out across 2-3 days every time somebody asks you a simple, direct question about basic facts? I've literally never seen anybody so desperate to avoid answering a direct question, and admitting that he was wrong about an obvious, basic fact.

Let's try again: A simple Yes/No is all that is needed:

1. The French National Assembly granted Jews full citizenship in September 1791.

2. Napoleon revoked many of their rights by imposing the penalties of the "Infamous Decree" in 1808, that I listed above.

Do you acknowledge that these are facts?

Im having a case of Deja Vu.

Haven't we done this before?

Haven't we done this before?

Yes. More than once. Pity is that now the discussion is focused on Kevin trying to get out the trap he has put himself into, instead comenting the article linked by Tango, which is a strawman argument after strawman argument if I've seen one.

Perhaps the following might help…

Imperial decree of 17 March, 1808, prescribing measures for the execution of the regulation of 10 december, 1806, regarding the Jews
Tuileries Palace, 17 March, 1808

Napoleon, Emperor of the French, King of Italy and Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine;

Following a report by our Interior Minister;
Having heard the advice of our Conseil d'Etat,

We have decreed and now decree the following:

Art. 1: The regulations decided by the General Assembly of Jews, held in Paris on 10 December, 1806, will be executed and annexed to the present decree.

Art. 2: Our ministers of the interior and of religion are charged inasmuch as it concerns them with the execution of the present decree.

Signed NAPOLÉON

By the Emperor:
The Minister Secretary of State, signed Hugues B. Maret

REGULATIONS
The deputies comprising the assembly of Israelites, convoked by the imperial decree dated 30 May, 1806, after having heard the report of the commission of nine, which was appointed to prepare the work to be undertaken by the assembly, deliberating on the most suitable system of organisation to be given to their fellow Jews of the French Empire and the Kingdom of Italy, regarding the exercise of their worship and their internal regulation, have unanimously adopted the following project:

Art. 1: A synagogue and an Israelite consistory will be established in every department containing more than two thousand individuals propfessing the Mosaic religion.

Art. 2: In the case where two thousand Israelites are not present in a single department, the constituency of the consistorial synagogue shall encompass sufficient nearby departments necessary to make up the number. The synagogue shall always be placed in the town with the highest Israelite population.

Art. 3: Under no circumstances can there be more than one consistorial synagogue per department.

Art. 4: No individual synagogue can be established without the proposition being made by the consistorial synagogue to the relevant authority. Each individual synagogue shall be administrated by two notables and one rabbi, all three appointed by the relevant authority.

Art. 5: Each consistorial synagogue shall have one Great Rabbi.

Art. 6: The consistories will be made up of: a Great Rabbi, another rabbi if possible, and three other Israelites, two of whom shall be chosen from amongst the inhabitants of the town in which the consistory is sited.

Art. 7: The consistory shall be presided over by the oldest of its members, and he will take the title of Elder of the consistory.

Art. 8: In every consistorial constituency, the appropriate authority shall designate twenty-five notables chosen from amongst the highest tax payers and most recommendable of the Israelites.

Art. 9: these notables shall proceed to the election of the members of the consistory, and their election must be approved by the relevant authority.

Art. 10: No member of the consistory may be: 1° aged under 30, 2°have at any time gone bankrupt, unless he has been honourably rehabilitated, 3° be known to have practised usury.

Art. 11: Every Israelite wishing to move to France or the Kingdom of Italy must communicate this to the consistory nearest to his intended dwelling place, within the space of three months.

Art. 12: The consistories must:

1° Ensure that rabbis do not give teachings or explanations of the law, whether in public or in private, contrary to the replies given by the assembly and converted into doctrinal decisions by the Great Sanhedrin;

2° To maintain order within the synagogues, to oversee the administration of the individual synagogues, to manage the funds received and to use them for the pursuance of the mosaic religion, and to ensure that no prayer assembly can be founded without express authorisation, for whatever reason, religious or otherwise;

3° To encourage the Israelites in the consistorial constituency by every means possible to exercise useful professions and to inform the authorities of those who do not possess the means to live which they profess they have;

4° To communicate to the authorities, every year, the number of Israelite conscripts in the constituency.

Art. 13: There shall be a central consistory, in Paris, comprising three rabbis and two other Israelites.

Art. 14: The rabbis from the central consistory should be selected from the Great Rabbis. The other members shall be subject to the conditions of election set out in article 10.

Art. 15: Every year, one member of the central consistory will be subject to re-election. That member may always stand again.

Art. 16: The remaining members of the will organise the latter's replacement. The newly elected candidate must be approved by the relevant authority.

Art. 17: The central consistory's duties are as follows:

1° To correspond with the other consistories,

2° To ensure the complete execution of the present regulations,

3° to defer to the relevant authority all non respect of these regulations, whether by the breaking of the law or by the non observance of it,

4° to confirm the appointment of the rabbis and to propose, where necessary, to the relevant authority the dismissal of rabbis or members of the consistories.

Art. 18: The election of the Grand Rabbi shall be performed by the twenty-five notables mentioned in article 8.

Art. 19: The newly elected Great Rabbi may not take up office until his appointment has been confirmed by the central consistory.

Art. 20: No rabbi may be elected unless,

1° he is a native or naturalised Frenchman or Italian in the Kingdom of Italy;

2° he brings with him an attestation of ability, co-signed by three Great Rabbis of Italy, if he is Italian, or of France if he is French, and, dating from 1820,unless he speaks French in France or Italian in Italy; he who can add knowledge of Greek and Latin to that of Hebrew will be preferred, all other things being equal.

Art. 21: Rabbis must:

1° teach religion,

2° to uphold the doctrine present in the decisions of the Great Sanhedrin,

3° to encourage obedience to the laws, notably and in particular those related to the defence of the homeland, and also to encourage conscription, more especially every year at conscription time, from the first appeal by the authorities up to the completion of the exercise;

4° to show Israelites that military service is a sacred duty and to declare to them that the time spent consecrated to that service dispenses them from observances which are not compatible with that service;

5° to preach in the synagogues and to recite the prayers which are spoken by the whole congregation for the Emperor and the imperial family; to celebrate marriage and to perform divorces, but only when the parties requiring the service have well and duly provided the justification of the civil act of marriage or divorce.

Art. 22: The stipends of rabbi members of the central consistory are to be fixed at six thousand francs, those of the Great Rabbis in the consistorial synagogues, three thousand francs; the stipends of the rabbis of specific synagogues shall be fixed by the assembly of the Israelites demanding the creation of the synagogue – they cannot be less than one thousand francs. The Israelites of the respective constituencies may vote increases in stipends.

Art. 23: Every consistory must propose to the appropriate authority a project for the division of the costs of the stipends of the rabbis amongst the Israelites in the constituency. The other costs shall be fixed and divided up following the request of the consistories to the relevant authorities. The stipends of the rabbi members of the central consistory will be proportionally taken from the sums received from the divers constituencies.

Art. 24: Each consistory shall appoint an Israelite (not a rabbi) from outside the consistory who will receive the sums collected by the constituencies.

Art. 25: This receiver shall pay the rabbis and all other costs every quarter, using a bill signed by at least three other members of the consistory. He will present the accounts annually, on a fixed day, to assembled consistory.

Art. 26: Every rabbi who, after the promulgation of this regulation, does not find a post but who wishes to remain in France or in the Kingdom of Italy will be ordered to adhere, via a formal signed declaration, to the decisions made by the Great Sanhedrin. A copy of this declaration will be sent by the receiving consistory to the central consistory.

Art. 27: Rabbi members of the Great Sanhedrin will be preferred, as far as is possible, to all other with respect to the position of Great Rabbi.

Certified in conformity:
Minister secretary of state, signed Hugues B. Maret

Source: Bulletin des Lois 1808, (No. 3237)

The bottom line remains that the decree issued by the revolutionary government in 1791 gave emancipation to the Jews in France, but did not guarantee citizenship nor did it protect them from the pogroms against them in the 1790s. It was Napoleon who formulated, issued the decrees, and granted French Jewry full citizenship and required the assimilation of French Jewry as French citizens. The information posted makes that quite clear.

Why are you qualifying your statement now, Kevin?

As written, the 1791 does not guarantee citizenship for Jews, but in the same way that it does not for non-Jews.

Your most recent quote doesn't refer to citizenship, but does indicate the amount of state influence on religion.

p.s. You didn't indicate where the wikipedia article was incorrect. Interesting quotes in places.

the decree issued by the revolutionary government in 1791 gave emancipation to the Jews in France, but did not guarantee citizenship "

No, as posted already twice, above:

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;

Seventh attempt to get a simple, clear answer to a simple, clear question:

1. The French National Assembly granted Jews full citizenship in September 1791.

2. Napoleon revoked many of their rights by imposing the penalties of the "Infamous Decree" in 1808, that I listed above.

Do you acknowledge that these are facts?

I already answered your question. Do you keep asking because I won't agree with you or are you ignoring my postings and answers.

The bottom line is (again) that the French National Assembly granted emancipation and not full citizenship to French Jewry. Napoleon through decree and legislation granted and guaranteed citizenship to French Jewry.

Instead of relying on Wikipedia and summarizing an article that has not been vetted you might try and find the actual decree in 1808 which has now been posted.

"I already answered your question. Do you keep asking because I won't agree with you or are you ignoring my postings and answers."

I keep asking because you haven't answered. It's a yes or no question.

As I far as I can see, your "answers" are:

1. Yes, you deny that the French republic granted full citizenship to Jews

2. (you refuse to answer) whether or not Napoleon revoked many of their rights in the Infamous Decree of 1808.

Is that correct? One denial of a fact, and one refusal to answer?

We are rapidly approaching Melvin-Land.

Well, technically it should have been posted on Napoleonic Media… I'm sure Tamgo will remember in future.

Instead of relying on Wikipedia and summarizing an article that has not been vetted you might try and find the actual decree in 1808 which has now been posted.

You know very well that Napoleon issued three decrees on 17 March, the third of which – which you have not posted – is the so-called "Infamous Decree" which revoked their rights. You chose to ignore it, so that you could also ignore the fact that he revoked their rights.

The text can be found here:

link

For example, page 250, Act IX establishes their special license. Then Act X: "All acts of commerce made by Jews who are not authorized are nullified."

Or Act XV, which prevents Jews from being paid for certain kinds of work.

Were you honestly unaware, or were you deliberately cherry-picking in the hope that nobody would catch you?

Note Title I, Article 1: he specifically re-instates the legality of special fees for Jews, that had been lifted in 1806.

Article 3: A list of professions that Jews can't hold anymore, without special permission.

Articles 4-5: Nullification of debts owed to Jews if the interest rate is over 10%, and reduction or nullification of other debts. Jews are obligated to prove that they are not fraudulent (they are assumed guilty unless they can prove their innocence.)

And so on and so on. In other words, pretty much exactly as the Wikipedia article said. (Which shouldn't have been surprising, since a link to the text of the law was available on that Wiki page, had you wished to use it.)

---

OK. Now you've got the text of the 1791 law in which the French Republic grants full citizenship to Jews. And you've got the text of Napoleon's decree revoking or rescinding many of their rights.

So, for the eighth time:

Do you acknowledge that these are facts?

Can I ask a dumb question? What does any of this have to do with wargaming?

Background. Fluff, if you are more W40K inclined.

the shameful practices by which many of them have earned their livelihood through the generations

to restrain and repress their habitual propensity to shady deals, their organized system of usury and fraud.'

H'mmm. Emancipation by any other name would smell as sweet.

Apologies Private Matter, I was wrong. Apparently historical discussion, even if unrelated to wargaming, is fine on this board.

Could you cite reference for that?

After thinking about Private Matter's post I reported it, asking for it to go in media as it was about politics and society but was informed that historical discussion is fine. It would appear to be up for debate now though.

Thanks for the respond Ben even though I really wasn't expecting a response. I just would prefer if everyone would be a bit more civil so debates could be educational as opposed to destructive.

Fair enough, but I confess I'm just a little flabbergasted that somebody who claims to be a historian and who has apparently published books, would behave in this way: deliberately spending 3-4 days flinging insults and contempt, desperately prevaricating and obfuscating in an attempt to avoid having to admit a factual error, and then finally running off, when all he had to do was say, "I stand corrected."

And in front of the whole world. Repeatedly. If I seem obsessive about this, it's because I'm just gobsmacked by it.

Granted this isn't my field of expertise, but if I behaved in this way, my boss and clients would probably shame me out of a job.

No, I got that Private Matter, but Tango likes to post contentious threads without apparently reading them and I thought this wouldn't disturb Discussion if it was moved somewhere more appropriate. I can argue until the views come home, I admit, but between this and the Guard thread being revived the pot has been well and truly stirred.

By the way, Kevin, when you recommend that people should read a book, it's usually a good idea to read it first, yourself:

Kevin: "Instead of relying on a tertiary source such as Wikipedia, which is not a credible source, perhaps you might find the following helpful:

-Napoleon, the Jews and the Sanhedrin by S Schwarzfuchs."

Schwarzfuchs describes the "Infamous Decree" in some detail on pages 127-128. He points out that Napoleon violated Jewish legal equality and his own Code Civil.

__

I don't suppose there's any chance of you admitting that you were wrong?

I have the book and I have read it. It doesn't negate the point that Napoleon gave the Jews full citizenship.

Perhaps you might want to investigate about the 1808 decree(s).

The question, I think, is why did Napoleon put restrictions on the Jews in the first place. Perhaps it was to stop the progroms that occurred during the Revolution and the prejudice that they were facing in Alsace, where most of them lived.

We have a difference of opinion on the subject. There is no need for you to either be obsessive over it or continue on a rampage.

It's getting old. And you're apt to take the viewpoint of 'ready, fire, aim' instead of well-thought out and researched material.

And finally, were the 1808 decrees followed in the first place. Many times Napoleon would issue a knee-jerk decree and then back off. A good example of that would be his orders to Davout in 1813 about how to treat the citizens of Hamburt. Davout would argue the point and Napoleon backed off on his initial orders.

I have the book and I have read it.

Then why in God's Holy Name did you play coy for three days and pretend that the Infamous decree didn't exist? You tried every trick in the book to avoid the subject, to shut it down, to claim that the Wikipedia article wasn't valid, and so on… But now you say that you've read a book that describes the Infamous Decree? In other words: you knew full well that it existed, even while refusing to acknowledge it?

It doesn't negate the point that Napoleon gave the Jews full citizenship.

He took away their liberties, which had been given to them in 1791. This is abundantly clear, from his own decrees.

We have a difference of opinion on the subject.

What I'm having trouble getting my head around, is: well, the question that I asked you eight times and you refused to answer. Namely: "Do you acknowledge that (the Infamous Decree) existed?"

I mean, this is like asking somebody, "Do you acknowledge the existence of Toronto?" How can you have a difference of opinion on that?

Do you acknowledge that Napoleon issued the Infamous Decree?

"And finally, were the 1808 decrees followed in the first place."

So your latest attempt is: "Hey, maybe people ignored his laws?"

Well, No. They didn't. How do I know this? Because I read the bloody book that you recommended and claimed to have read, yourself.

Or if you prefer, Alexander Grab from "Napoleon and the Jews":

"… annulled, reduced, or postponed payments of debts to Jewish creditors. It nullified debts owed to Jews by minors, wives, and soldiers without the consent of their guardians, husbands, and officers, respectively. Moreover, before the loan was to be paid back, Jewish lenders had to prove that they had given the full amount of money to the debtor, clearly, "mission impossible." Debts bearing interest of more than five percent were reduced while loans carrying an interest higher than ten percent were cancelled. The decree then went on to place strict limits on Jewish commercial activities. It required Jews who wanted to pursue a commercial activity, to obtain a license from the prefect, and a confirmation from the concerned municipality that the applicant never practiced usury or illegal business, and a reference from the consistory attesting to his good conduct and integrity. The license needed to be renewed annually and could be revoked if the licensed Jew engaged in usury or fraudulent business. Any commercial activity by an unlicensed Jew was null and void. Jews were prohibited from lending money to servants or employees unless the contract was drawn up by a notary who was present when the entire sum was handed over. In an attempt to limit the number of Jews in Alsace, the decree forbade Jews to settle in that region. Foreign Jews could move into the Empire only if they intended to purchase land and engage in agriculture. In sum, Napoleon took practically every step he could think of to penalize and discourage money lending, peddling, and commerce and turn Jews into productive citizens. Finally, the authorities forbade Jewish conscripts from finding replacements, a right every other French citizen had."

The new decree clearly violated Jewish legal equality and the Code Civil. The new regulations also inflicted financial losses on numerous Jews; between one-half and three-fourths never received their loans back. Jews had, once again, the feeling of being persecuted and it is no wonder, then, that they labeled this decree the "Infamous Decree" (le decret infame).

The question, I think, is why did Napoleon put restrictions on the Jews in the first place.

OK, so you acknowledge it, then? You admit that Napoleon removed the liberties of the Jews.

If you want to know why, just ask the man himself:

"Our goal is to reconcile the faith of the Jews with the duties of the French and to render them useful citizens, it being resolved to remedy the harm many of them apply themselves to the great detriment of our subjects."

Napoleon to Champagny, 22 July, 1806.

Ok, guys. I want you all to walk away from the thread.

Can you do that for me?

I'm just visiting but I have a question –

what is wrong with you people? Why do you continue to argue with someone who has no intention of listening to others?

Tango01

Your Peterloo post was relevant to this period, considering a British Waterloo veteran was killed during the disgraceful slaughter. The British Yeomanry, many of them said to be drunk, started the slaughter in which these 'brave warriors' even cut down and killed women, including a mother and her child who also died. Infantry, cavalry and even two cannons were placed against the people who had come to listen to the speakers. The British Napoleonic dead must have been wondered what the hell they died for at Waterloo.

I suggest people read Chapter 10, The Forgotten Hero at Peterloo, found in The Scum of the Earth by Colin Brown, to obtain a better understanding of what really happened on that black and disgraceful day in British history.

On the Jews and how they were treated is a far more complex matter than is often made out. To place Napoleon against them is to ignore reality of the times:

under Louis XV1-
'Very few bourgeois families remained in the business that had enriched them for more than a singe generation-unless they were Protestants or Jews debarred by law from everything except making money.' (The Oxford History of the French Revolution by William Doyle, page 24)

'Yet the National assembly proved in much less a hurry to grant Jews the full rights of French citizens. When the issues was debated (which is was not until the last days of 1789) it became clear that many did not regard them as French at all, or at least not the unassimilated Yiddish-speaking Ashkenazim of Alsace who made up nine-tenths of the Jewish population. Accordingly the latter did not benefit from the first emancipation decree of January 1790. Not until the very end of the Constituent, 27 September 1791, were they admitted to full citizenship, against the vocal opposition of the Alsatian future Director, Reubell. Strictly speaking, dechristianization could not be applied to the Jews; but the practise of their religion was still persecuted in 1793 and 1794 by the Montagnard zealots of Alsace, who remembered that Jewish fanaticism and superstition were as much condemned by Voltaire and other prophets of progress as by undiminished popular prejudice.
(The Oxford History of the French Revolution by William Doyle, page 411)

'Not however, until 1805 did the government intervene again in Jewish affairs, and then Napoleon's aim was to consolidate their position as citizens, if only by imposing state control on their activities.' (The Oxford History of the French Revolution by William Doyle, page 411)

'The previous day, possibly for the first time, Napoleon had encountered an organised Jewish community, for Ancona had one of the largest in western Europe. As Jews did throughout the Papal States, they lived in a ghetto, under evening curfew, and were forced to wear yellow stars. As corroborated in a contemporary Jewish chronicle, Napoleon's spontaneous reaction was to send a detachment composed of Jewish soldiers to tear down the walls and rip off the yellow stars. He emancipated them from all papal restrictions, and the community hailed him for it. Later, he invited a Jewish delegation from Ancona to see him in Milan, where he welcomed them warmly. In the meantime, he appointed three Jews to the municipal council and told Paris, 'My plan is to gather together as many Jews there as possible' to make Acona into the Cisalpine's entrepot for lucrative commerce with the Middle East.'(Napoleon Soldier of Destiny by Michael Broers, page 136)

'Moreover the new regime sought inclusiveness not just in political terms but in cultural, legal, administrative and religious matters, encompassing toleration for Protestants and Jews.' (Napoleon Soldier of Destiny by Michael Broers, page 261)

'Although he didn't meet many Jews during his childhood or at school, and none of his friends were Jewish, during the Italian campaign he had opened up the ghettos of Venice, Verona, Padua, Livorno, Ancona and Rome, and ended the practice of forcing Jews to wear the Star of David. he had stopped Jews being sold as slaves in Malta and allowed them to build a synagogue there, as well as sanctioning their religious and social structures in his Holy Land campaign. He had even written a proclamation for a Jewish homeland in Palestine on April 20, 1799, which was rendered redundant after his defeat at Acre (but was nonetheless published in the Moniteur). He extended civil equality for the Jews beyond the borders of France in all his campaigns.' (Napoleon the Great by Andrew Roberts, page 403)

'Yet, despite this, when napoleon thought the interests of the Jews conflicted with those of his natural constituency of French landlords, tradesmen and the better-off peasantry, he supported the latter with little regard for natural justice. On March 17, 1808, he passed 'The Infamous Decree' which imposed further restrictions on the Jews, making debts harder to collect, conscription harder to avoid and the purchase of new trading licenses compulsory. Although napoleon lifted many of these within a few months in many departments, they lasted until 1811 in Alsace. In Germany Jews became full citizens under Napoleon's edict forming Westphalia in 1807, with special taxes on them abolished. Similarly, in 1811, the five hundred Jewish families of the Frankfurt ghetto were made full citizens, as were all the Jews except moneylenders in Baden. In Hamburg, Lubeck and Bremen the entry of Napoleon's troops brought civil rights for the Jews, however much the local rulers and populace hated it.' (Napoleon the Great, page 404)

'It seems that, although Napoleon was personally prejudiced against the Jews to much the same degree as the rest of his class and background, he saw advantages for France in making them less unwelcome there than they were elsewhere in Europe.' (Napoleon the Great, pages 405-406)

It seems that, to pick on Napoleon for being anti-Sematic is to ignore the reality of the time, as it is it to judge anyone or anything that happened during the Napoleonic period with today's views and values.

Linked is an interesting article on the Napoleon and the Jews by a renowned historian and author.

link

Never mind Napoleon and the French, it seems emancipation for the Jews in Britain did not happen until 1858, well after the Napoleonic period.

link

Gazzola, many thanks for turning up at this point, just as the thread was dying, to present new evidence to help settle the difference of opinion which has dragged on for so long.

I'm sure Kevin will be delighted to see you produce a non-Wikipedia source on the issue, namely the Oxford History of the French Revolution:

'Not until the very end of the Constituent, 27 September 1791, were they admitted to full citizenship'

Lovely. Another arrow in the quiver, so to speak.

I'd be more than happy to discuss Jewish emancipation in Britain if you think it would be of any use, but would suggest adjourning to the 19th century board, where there's more room.

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

No. What was found was a letter from Godoy, acting without knowledge neither of the King, nor the King's Council. If you would know a little about Spain's internal politics at the time, you would realize how weak is that argument to justify the invasion. Actually, it is so weak that Napoleon never used it himself, but as an afterthought. His correspondence shows that his motivations were different. Contrary to his modern-day fanboys the Emperor was clever and confident enough to reserve his propaganda for Le Moniteur and his Bulletins.

He didn't trust the Spanish since 1804, when Spain failed to declare war to Great Britain for several months even after the unprovoked attack by the British navy against four Spanish frigates that were carrying silver and other produces -besides the families of the Spanish officers, which were killed in the one-sided fight- from America to the peninsula. The Emperor was planning to get rid of the Spanish Bourbons since 1805 at least, possibly even earlier (the 1801 events in Catalonia were interpreted by the Spanish as an early attempt to impose a French military presence in Spain), i.e. before Godoy would have sounded the possibility of joining an anti-Napoleonic coalition.

If you are minimally interested, read André Fugier's "Napoleon et l'Espagne, 1799-1808". It is a bit dated but still the best introduction to the subject.

Ben Avery

No need to thank me. I'm here to help. LOL

I'm sure Kevin will be delighted to see you produce a non-Wikipedia source on the issue, namely the Oxford History of the French Revolution:

I appreciate any and all evidence if it is presented factually and in context as well as without rancor, accusation, and limp-wristed attempts at personal insult. Seems to me the level of discourse could be kept at a reasonable respectful level and not degenerate to the level of a fifth grade playground, and that is probably an insult to fifth graders. As an aside there is an excellent article in this week's Time Magazine regarding insult and injury on the internet. I would urge everyone to read it.

Anways, back to the general topic…

Perhaps the following might help. Again from The Dictionary of Napoleonic France, edited by Owen Connelly, et al, 266-267:

‘Jews and Napoleon. Napoleon proclaimed the civic emancipation of the Jews as his victorious armies entered the countries of Western and Central Europe and reputedly issued a manifesto in Palestine promising the Jews return to their country. In France, however, he ignored the Jews whom the Revolutionaries had emancipated 28 January 1790 and 27 September 1791. While free to practice their religion publicly, they, unlike the Protestants and Catholics, were denied state payment of their clergy. Lacking any official organization, they were left on their own to discipline their communities and resolve any contradictions between their political status and religious commitments. Alsatian French complaints that soon all their property would be mortgaged to the enemies of the church, rather than Jewish pleas to be included with the Protestants in the decree of 1802, finally prompted Napoleon to turn his attention to the Jews of France. Influenced by the liberal Revolutionaries in his Council of State and the pragmatics of post-Revolutionary consolidation, he convened the Assembly of Jewish notables (1806) to redefine traditional Judaism and to establish an institutional body to transform the Jews into French citizens. This was followed (1807) by the Grand Sanhedrin of European rabbis.'

‘To a degree, Napoleon reversed the process by which the Revolutionaries had emancipated the Jews. He questioned their loyalty and demanded doctrinal as well as concrete economic proofs of their worthiness for citizenship. His settlements united all the Jews of France in one centrally controlled organization (the consistories) and assured the French that all Jews viewed France as their country and the French as their brethren. They were proclaimed by the Assembly of Notables and sanctioned by the Grand Sanhedrin. However, they also relieved Alsatians of much of their indebtedness to Jewish moneylenders and the north-eastern Jews of their economic freedom (enacted on 30 May 1806 and 17 March 1808).'

‘Whatever his personal feelings, Napoleon saw little value in restricting the Jews indefinitely to an inferior status. He sought to achieve, as did many Jewish sympathizers during the Revolution, the economic, social, and political assimilaltion of French Jewry. Restricted economically and discriminated against socially and politically, however, the vast majority of the Jews remained in their rural communities and retained their traditional economic and religious practices. Napoleon elicited from the Jews a blueprint for their successful emergence as citizens, but the actual transformation only followed the Napoleonic era and accompanied the industrialization and urbanization of France.-Frances Malino.

This article certainly infers that Jews were not either considered or granted full citizenship at the beginning of the French Revolution and that Napoleon was the instigator of that process, and, therefore, was the first European ruler to grant the Jews full citizenship, whether or not that was qualified economically.

The Great Sanhedrin of France released all Jews in the French armed forces from all religious and dietary observances for the good of the service because of Napoleon's recognition of its spiritual authority. In 1812 it was decided that conscripted Jews could obtain substitutes if that substitute was another Jew.
According to Andrew Roberts in Napoleon the Great (402-404) the debt repayment in Alsace was only for a year. The anti-Semitic Alsatian laws were repealed after Austerlitz. Napoleon declared Judaism one of the three great religions of France.

The ‘Infamous Decree' had most of its restrictions lifted after a few months in many French departments but was not lifted in Alsace until 1811.

In Germany Jews under the Empire also became full citizens in 1807 and in 1811 the Jews in the Frankfurt ghetto were made full citizens, as they were in Hamburg, Lubeck, and Bremen regardless of what the local magistrates, de facto rulers, or the local citizenry thought. Although some of Napoleon's treatment of the Jews in France can today be considered harsh, it wasn't by early 19th century European standards and Napoleon's reputation in Jewry is today considered as a ‘Righteous Gentile.'

According to Michael Broers in Napoleon Soldier of Destiny, (361) Napoleon's aim was not only political inclusiveness but also culturally, legally, administratively, and religiously and that included both Protestants and Jews. ‘Napoleon forged a template for French society which it had to conform to' and that included full citizenship for Jews.

Whatever the National Assembly intended in 1790 and 1791 while not immaterial, but what it accomplished was emancipation of the Jews by decree by not full citizenship. If that had happened and the National Assembly had been able to enforce its ruling, then full citizenship was a possibility. What resulted, in effect, was little or nothing. French Jewry was not assimilated into French society, which is part of being a citizen. Further there were pogroms still carried on against the Jews, as there were against French Protestants. The consecutive French revolutionary governments were either ineffective, corrupt, or inefficient. Napoleon's government, on the other hand was not. And it was under the Empire that Jews were made full citizens, not under the governments of the Revolution.

Sorry Kevin; but is the text, presented by Gazzola, incorrect?

I would suggest, if you are really interested in an answer instead of merely being an 'impartial observer', that you investigate the subject and come up with your own conclusion.

Enough references have been given in the thread for you to conduct your own investigation, and usually that is the most satisfying. If you won't do that it seems to me that you are not really interested coming to an answer on your own, but merely being an 'agent provocateur' so to speak.

One of the great advantages of using the Napoleonic forums on the internet is the references that are given by various posters. For example, Basileus gave an excellent reference on Spain that I have found and intend to buy and read for myself. Pursuing that course of action broadens one's perspective on the period as well as one's knowledge base.

So, why don't you try it?

I posted information that I have found from four credible sources as general information for the forum. Accept it or not, that is up to you. From that material I came up with a conclusion. That is called 'historical inquiry.' It's a fascinating way of doing business.

Kevin, instead of a simple answer you provide more attacks and accusations. If you believe Gazzola's evidence to be incorrect you could just say so.

I have read the evidence provided, I have indeed looked elsewhere, including information provided by a number of Jewish organisations, who would seem to have a vested interest in the issue. Your original statement would indeed appear to incorrect. p.565 here link seems quite specific too.

Anyway, you seem quite set on ignoring primary evidence and categorical statements in other sources, so I'll leave you to inference rather than evidence.

What is on paper does not always relate to the reality of the situation-

In terms of their 'emancipation' during the Revolution, it appears it was more a case of 'having' to do so, rather then wanting to do so, because not to do so would go against the ideals of the Revolution. That is clear from the Jewish link below, where you find the following-

'In the era of the Revolution the Jews did not receive their equality automatically.'

The Revolutionaries seem to have had the belief that the Jews would become French citizens rather than remain Jews or a nation within a nation.

But even after their 'emancipation'-
'Even so, the parliament on the very next day passed a decree of exception under which the debts owed to Jews in eastern France were to be put under governmental supervision.' Hmm, perhaps not so free or equal then? LOL

The site also indicates that they appeared to have suffered during the reign of terror, if not after.
'Anti-Jewish acts did not stop entirely with the end of the terror.'

And from another Jewish source, concerning Napoleon and the Jews-

'Such optimism explains Napoleon's dramatic attempt to address the failures of Jewish emancipation and regeneration, first in 1806 with the convocation of an assembly of Jewish notables, and in the following year, with the establishment of the Paris Sanhedrin.' (The Shape of a Jewish Identity in Nineteenth-Century France by Jay. R. Beckovitz, page 42)

Note the words 'failures of Jewish emancipation'

link

I think you missed a word out of your quote Gazzola:

'complete emancipation'.

Indeed, it is unusual for a stroke of a pen to change attitudes and centuries of distrust of Jews would not disappear overnight as a result, but the act was done, nevertheless.

I wouldn't open the can of worms that is Jewish debts again though, as those attitudes do not seem to have disappeared entirely. Government oversight (which the Jews were able to refuse to comply with – 'What is on paper does not always relate to the reality of the situation') sounds a little better than the Emperor telling people they could ignore debts they owed to Jews, again because of anti-Jewish sentiment.

Your link does say however: 'In relation to the Jewish question Napoleon was the heir of the Revolution, and his victories after 1800 only extended the sphere of the emancipation.' That seems a good summation.

Wow, Garth in the Park got DH'd but other people didn't. Wow.

He should be freed.