"Why Did So Much of Napoleon's Family Come to America?" Topic

"Few things are as closely linked as the Bonapartes and France. But the famed emperor's family also had strong connections across the Atlantic. No fewer than five of Napoleon's seven siblings—and very nearly the "Little Corporal" himself—either lived in the United States or had children who did. Generally sharing Napoleon's restless ambition, military prowess and knack for drama, these American Bonapartes even included a member of President Teddy Roosevelt's cabinet…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

An interesting counterfactual is how Washington would now be seen had he behaved after the WAI as Napoleon did.

Eg appointing himself Emperor of America; awarding kingships to his family and cronies; getting very, very rich…

Hmmmm. It seems to me one of the more admirable traits of Washington was his sense of boundaries. He did not seek to further en-richen himself nor practice more than the usual nepotism from his office & position post-AWI.

So I can't agree with your no doubt creative idea as it distorts the truth too far.

When First Consul, Napoleon was asked if he would voluntarily relinquish power when he considered is work to be done. He answered, 'Who do you think I am? George Washington!'

Napoleon admired Washington and when Washington died he put the French army into mourning.

It seems to me one of the more admirable traits of Washington was his sense of boundaries. He did not seek to further en-richen himself nor practice more than the usual nepotism from his office & position post-AWI.
So I can't agree with your no doubt creative idea as it distorts the truth too far.

Well said and very well done.

An interesting counterfactual is how Washington would now be seen had he behaved after the WAI as Napoleon did.
Eg appointing himself Emperor of America; awarding kingships to his family and cronies; getting very, very rich.

The above posting is 'counterfactual' in itself.

The circumstances for the new United States and France were different.

Washington had been the de facto head of state for at least the last three years of the War of the Revolution as Congress had then usually deferred to his judgment.

Washington was a wealthy planter in his own right.

Napoleon did not appoint himself Emperor nor First Consul. Both were 'approved' by the French government and those in power.

Washington's war was over when he resigned as C-in-C of the Continental Army. Napoleon ended the wars he inherited in 1799 and completely reformed France. Napoleon also lived on his salary, as Washington did. Both men were against corruption and Napoleon saved about half of his annual salary.

French soldiers did come to America after the first surrender of Napoleon in 1814 and again in 1815. A large number settled in the South Alabama area of the Mississippi territory. We still have towns and counties with French names. The main two counties they settled in were Mobile and Marengo.

Thanks!

Amicalement
Armand

It's an interesting thought that if Napoleon had been born in America in 1750, then America would have had an Emperor when the French Revolution broke out.

Some intellectual giant like Joseph Bonaparte would have been King of Canada.

Marshal Ney also apparently ended up in Louisiana , I think, after his fake "execution".

I seem to remember that for his first office as President Washington offered to serve for expenses only rather than the generous stipend offered.

His 'expenses' far exceeded the offered salary and for the second office he was forced to accept the salary..

It's an interesting thought that if Napoleon had been born in America in 1750, then America would have had an Emperor when the French Revolution broke out.

Some intellectual giant like Joseph Bonaparte would have been King of Canada.

An Emperor? You mean like George III; that very stable genius?

Napoleon did not appoint himself Emperor nor First Consul. Both were 'approved' by the French government and those in power.

Neither did Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi appoint himself either. Almost all tyrants and usurpers paint them selves as invitees or saviours. I suppose landing at Golfe Juan wasn't a coup either?

If the attributed quote is true, Napoleon condemns himself out of his own mouth "I saw the crown of France laying on the ground, so I picked it up with my sword."

You mean like George III; that very stable genius?

Careful Minipigs. We shouldn't mock the afflicted or belittle the very real issue of mental illness.

The problem with hereditary succession is that if the individual comes with a personality disorder which affects their stability, you are pretty much stuck with it.

Now, it's different if you knowingly elect someone……..

@Handlebarbleep

Ouch and touché :)

@ Minipigs

No – in my counterfactual, a Napoleon fighting on the American side in the WAI becomes the pre-eminent general of the American republic, instead of Washington.

As he factually did when he was the pre-eminent general of the French republic, he then uses his control of the army constructively to reverse the revolution, and turn it back into a hereditary monarchy, with himself as monarch. Meet the new boss; same as the old boss.

In a confirmatory plebiscite 3 million Americans would then vote for him to become Emperor, with just 1,500 votes against. The 3 million votes would include half a million or so on behalf of the army even though it didn't vote.

Hence by 1789 America would have had an Emperor if counterfactual Napoleon had done in America what he did in France.

He'd then have recreated a nobility and appointed a variety of stooges, political rivals and competent generals to it, pacified with bungs, baubles and estates. So we would probably have had the Duke of Washington.

By about 1795 the Americans would have been a bit fed up with this guy like the French were by 1814, but there'd have been nobody handy to depose him militarily or to reinstate King George, so he'd have soldiered on until his death in 1801. The capital of the USA would now be Bonaparte, DC.

Almost all tyrants and usurpers paint them selves as invitees or saviours. I suppose landing at Golfe Juan wasn't a coup either?

Napoleon does not fit the definition of a tyrant, which is one that rules ignoring the law. Napoleon didn't do that. The Bourbons and their supporters believed Napoleon to be a 'usurper.' So what?

The Bourbons refused to pay Napoleon the salary granted him by the Treaty of Fontainebleu which they signed. That forced Napoleon to act. And the Bourbons ran to Belgium without trying to defend themselves. They army rallied to Napoleon. And Napoleon let the Bourbons go, which wasn't the reverse case after Waterloo.

Bindon, the book you're thinking of is "George Washington's Expense Account." It's fun, but it's pretty much a lie from one end to the other since it makes no provision for inflation of the currency. Washington's proposed salary was in hard money. The paper he was spending in 1781 to maintain a staff and an intelligence network was, as the saying ran later "not worth a Continental."

Brechtel, I must have missed the David painting of the scene where the people of Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Westphalia arrived at Fontainbleu, petitioning to be granted rules of the sacred blood of Bonaparte--and the later one in which His Imperial Majesty granted the pleas of the Catalans, the Dutch and the members of the Hanseatic League to be admitted to the Empire as true Frenchmen. How about a description of the plebiscite in Haiti calling for the re-imposition of slavery?

@Brechtel198

That is a very narrow interpretation of tyrant, Merriam-Webster gives:

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

I'd say it is a moot point to say that he is not a tyrant because he ruled in line with a constitution, when it is imposed by him with the army at his back.

As to the remaining categories, I suppose you could ask what the Vendeans or the Spanish thought?

Either way, tyrant he was and tyrant he was called in his own lifetime, even by his own Marshals and Generals. OK, so still Your Majesty to his face until 1814 and 15.

So you are not an usurper if the rightful ruler is forced into exile? Can't see that argument holding much water.

Brechtel198

Also, Napoleon was not arrested by the Bourbons. He voluntarily surrendered to the British.

I've had pay queries with my employer, but I didn't go round and steal their house off them.

What would be fab is if somehow, in my alt-America, there could be a war of 1812 with Britain in which the Duke of Washington meets in battle with the Duke of Wellington.

Do you think Wellington would have won at the battle of New Orleans, or do you think like Major General Sir Edward Pakenham he would've also gotten his bicorne pushed in? :)

As Wellington was never defeated I imagine he'd have maintained this record :-)

What could have happened, though, was that Emperor Napoleon of America would have hung out in Philadelphia periodically attacking native tribes and trying to annex the entire continent. Wellington would have been a pain in the neck in some remote peninsula – Florida maybe – who would defeat successive American dukes – the Duke of Washington, the Duke of New York (Clinton), the Duke of Saratoga (Gates). As the list of defeated American noblemen grew, increasingly, people would whisper that Wellington had no other peer than the American Emperor himself.

After a disastrous campaign against the Inuit in which Nape (as the Yanks cheerily called him) lost his whole army in the snows, Wellington marched on the American capital. Abandoning what remained of his army, Nape rushed back to Philadelphia to defend his American throne…

They heard the Neil Diamond song on the radio ???

As Wellington was never defeated I imagine he'd have maintained this record

He lost at Burgos. He also had to lift other sieges, for various reasons, during the war in Spain and Portugal, such as the first siege of San Sebastien which was another failure.

And Toulouse and Fuentes d'Onoro were both squeakers- "If Boney had been there, we should have been beat," as the Duke himself said.

If Washington has been in it for himself and kingship, he would never have been able to hold that army together. It's survival and triumph- like Wellington's at Waterloo- is as much a testament to the man's character as his intellect.

What Napoleon did to France in the wake of the revolution totally subverted it and replaced one tyrannical hereditary monarchy with another.

It's interesting to reflect on what would have happened had Washington been a lesser man – a Napoleon, say – and done the same in America. That it seems so outlandish / outrageous gives some idea, I think, of how Napoleon's career seemed to most people at the time.

Imagine Mount Rushmore with the faces of Napoleon, Joseph, Lucien and Pauline Bonaparte. Imagine CVN-73, the USS Napoleon Bonaparte.

Weird, yes, but there was an actual country this happened to.

had Washington been a lesser man – a Napoleon, say

Napoleon a lesser man?

Does it occur to our resident learned scholars that if it hadn't been for Napoleon, Wellington would've been remembered primarily for…absolutely nothing.

Had Washington been a lesser man, the Continental Army would have been defeated, and the term "British Columbia" would probably refer to a continent, rather than a province.

My counterfactual Washington is one who was militarily as effective as the historical version, but who unhistorically is a megalomaniac moral incompetent, and an ethical hole in the air – like, well, Napoleon.

Why is it so unthinkable that America's revolution could have had its direction perverted to suit the agenda of an overmighty general? If it could happen to France it could happen to America. Arguably it's the usual result of such revolutions. Cromwell and the English revolution, Stalin and the Russian revolution. Probably others.

a megalomaniac moral incompetent, and an ethical hole in the air – like, well, Napoleon.

Objectivity is so overrated.

Why is it so unthinkable that America's revolution could have had its direction perverted to suit the agenda of an overmighty general? If it could happen to France it could happen to America. Arguably it's the usual result of such revolutions. Cromwell and the English revolution, Stalin and the Russian revolution. Probably others.

I think America actually had several megalomaniacal generals who tried to serve their own interests but somehow, the Continental Congress was hip to these men. Maybe if the Continental army hadnt been such a poorly provisioned, unruly bunch of volunteers, then someone couldve seized power for themselves. But because it took so much effort just to hold the army together, it took a certain type of relatively selfless person to lead them.

Also, part of the reason is that America had most of Europe on their side; Frederick the Great dissuades Empress Catherine from hiring out soldiers to England ( A great counterfactual is what if Russians had also been in the AWI), France and Spain actively supported the rebels. Meanwhile, during the French Revolution, France had most of the monarchies against the revolution.

Last, it seems a British military trait to both underestimate and degrade the enemy which no doubt contributed to many of the initial disasters in their wars. Often, they were able to correct those mistakes or got lucky with an able general and sometimes they couldn't recalibrate as in the AWI.

What if it was Napoleon the Corsican Revolutionary and not Napoleon the jaded artillery officer? Washington was offered the throne, maybe a younger, more idealistic Napoleon would be satisfied with a democratic monarchy similar to Bernadotte or George. The tide of democracy sweeps across the 19th century and modern kings Napoleon are caught wearing storm trooper uniforms at costume parties…

Interesting what if….

Amicalement
Armand

Why is it so unthinkable that America's revolution could have had its direction perverted to suit the agenda of an overmighty general?

A more likely scenario would have been that faced with growing discontent within the regular army against civilian authorities, a military leader might have chosen to profit from the soldiers discontent rather than trying to restrain it. The groundwork was certainly there for this to happen.

The problem with this scenario was that the U.S. was far too decentralized at the time of the AWI for a military coup to be effective over more than just a portion of the country.

If the colonies were susceptible to military conquest, the British would have conquered them. They had half the populace on their side, and they won battle after battle, they controlled the sea, but the vastness of the country meant they could only hold it around the edges, and in the end, that vastness eroded their armies and left them holding New York.

No place on earth was so decentralized in those days; the consent of the governed was necessary in part because no power then constituted had the force it would have needed to make their writ run across thirteen states, each the size of a European country. Washington couldn't hold them all, but by holding the Continental army together- a feat of character, not strategy- he ensured a political alternative to British rule. The colonies ultimately evolved a specifically limited government because they knew there was no other way to secure unity other than general consent to local rule.

If the Civil War had started in 1832, it would have ended differently: the north didn't yet have the Industrial structure and transportation network it would need to mass armies to invade the South. Andrew Jackson's threat to hang John Calhoun was a successful bluff- but not an expression of the power sufficient to coerce the south.

He would've given Wellington a run for his money at New Orleans, though.