"What Influence Did the French Revolution Have on" Topic

…Napoleon's Rise to Power?.

"When the unmonied poor rose up in the late 1700s, it was the culmination of years of starvation and deprivation under French rulers and noblemen. It was hoped that with the end of the monarchy there would be an end to the wars, unfair taxation and excess draining the French economy. The people wanted to improve their economic fortunes. Instead of improving, France descended further into corruption and chaos, and ushered in the rise of a new dictator -- Napoleon.

Before the revolution, France had undertaken an enormous amount of debt due years of war with England. The tax burden fell mostly on the peasants, who were taxed for nearly everything they did -- including being taxed for the number of children they had in their families. The nobles refused to be taxed according to their wealth. Immediately before the Revolution broke out, the nobility tried to reform the tax code but were unsuccessful. The tax issues and the financial burden were compounded by a famine in the years prior to the revolution…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Wow, a teacher.
With a summation like that- "The price however, was an eventual loss of freedom for the people of France, as Napoleon had himself crowned emperor in 1804"-- she could have been writing about 2020!
-1/10 …

And after Napoleon abdicated in 1814 and the monarchy was restored things got worse. People were so sick of monarchy and missed the freedoms they enjoyed under Napoleon, that it was easy to see how Napoleon was able to take back the government in 1815 upon his return.

Unfortunately, I can't access the original article. However, I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that having a dynastic imperial family from 1804 wasn't really on the list of preferred options for the instigators of the revolution?

what freedoms under Nabulieone?
It was worse than before, hundreds of thousands on to the slaughterhouse to satisfy the megalomaniac schemes of their Emperor – who was a monarch as well.

Napoleon fundamentally disagreed with one of the key aims of the revolution, namely abolition of the monarchy. What he supported was the abolition of the current monarch, and the replacement of him and the Bourbon dynasty by himself and the Bonaparte dynasty. He also thought Bourbon and other monarchs in other territories should be replaced by Bonaparte dynasty monarchs there as well. But he was wholly behind the principle of absolute, unaccountable hereditary monarchy kept in place by armed force, as long as he was the monarch.

He was very, very conservative, was Boney.

Whenever a void is created --it will always be filled.
By something. Something better I suppose people believe and hope for ?????
Russ Dunaway

what freedoms under Nabulieone?
It was worse than before

"Napoleonic code- One of Napoleon's most important reforms, this set of laws included such freedoms as equality of all citizens before the law, religious toleration, and the abolition of feudalism."

You question reminds me of a scene in Monty Python's Life of Brian: " "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?". LOL

Bonaparte was only partially conservative. He definitely approved of a number of steps taken to clear away legal and economic relics of earlier times within France.

USAF Pilot + 1

Amicalement
Armand

you mean the code civile? Started already in the French Revolutions, otherwise Nabulieone was very much back paddling, re introduction of slavery, creating a new nobility, introducing hereditary monarchy, not that much different to the Bourbons.

Well it was very different from the Bourbons because he was competent. It seems hereditary nobility and kings produce a lot of idiots and insane persons. I offer George III as an example.

Napoleon is extremely popular in France and I wonder how popular George III is in the UK? Or any of the George's for that matter?

Also you gotta love Napoleon because he backed America and its liberties. Liberties the British were constantly trying to take away. Fortunately, America did beat all those elite British units in the War of 1812. It is too bad America wasn't stronger at that time because Im sure it would've loved to have invaded the UK or helped the French in the Peninsula. An interesting "what if?"

All previous attempts of the Code Civil ("code" is masculine) failed. Napoleon certainly believed in law and order and it was he who rewrote it completely and got the Napoleonic Code passed.

@ Bill N

Pragmatism presumably. If he had completely recreated the Bourbon regime, he'd have presumably suffered their fate.

People were so sick of monarchy and missed the freedoms they enjoyed under Napoleon, that it was easy to see how Napoleon was able to take back the government in 1815 upon his return.

Ignoring for a second the "how would we know what the people were sick of either way" question, which freedoms had the people enjoyed under Napoleon that the Bourbons taken away? How was Imperial France under Napoleon not a monarchy?

"Also you gotta love Napoleon because he backed America and its liberties". Minipigs- would that be the liberty to trade slaves? Napoleon was all in favour of that particular liberty himself- I can see why there might have been a community of interest.

Hereditary Monarchy (you mean the one that Napoleon tried to reintroduce for his own son perhaps?) certainly did produce its fair share of idiots and insane persons. By contrast- elected presidency is doing really well as a form of governance- a shining beacon to us all…..

Minipigs- I see that you are seeking to reinforce even more your credentials as a real suppository of knowledge on the Napoleonic era. You're doing very well.

Sorry- of course I meant 'repository of knowledge'. No- on reflection- I was right first time…..

I am referring to the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those liberties enumerated in that document didn't exist in Britain at the time. I am sure you would agree that the US Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written.

Yeah, Napoleon was a little bit of a control freak but to be fair to him, he was surrounded by Dynasties that demanded stability and proof of patrilinear succession in order to submit to long term treaties. In some ways, our hero had no choice.

In any case, I was responding to van winterfeldt seeming to indicate that Napoleon was returning to an aristocratic form of government and to the extent that this is so I thought it well to point out that at least Napoleon achieved power via merit rather than having it handed to him by luck of birth such as in the case of presumably legitimate but dissolute descendants of the French and Spanish Bourbons or the medically unfit, like George III.

I dont deny that Napoleon did some selfish things, rather I submit that the Spanish Bourbons and George III never did any selfless things.

I dont know what you mean by your comment about elected presidency not doing well?

Minipigs, last sentence is sarcastic, isn't it?

Does anyone know how much of the Code was written by Napoleon and how much was the work of his legal team of magistrates?

While it can be dismissed as pragmatism 4th Cuirassier, I don't think it was mere self preservation. I think instead its a different way of viewing things. Many of the rules and distinctions of the ancien regime and pre-Revolutionary Europe made sense when viewed through the lens of history. To someone who did not feel bound by that history they were merely impediments to progress.

We beat the British in the War of 1812 Minipigs? I must have slept through that in school. Survived would probably be a better description of the outcome.

To the extent Napoleon was more respectful of American liberties it was because those liberties did not conflict with Napoleon's interests to the same extent as they conflicted with Britain's. The collapse of Napoleon's designs for the Americas and the renewal of war between Britain and France worked to America's interests.

The US Bill of Rights ought to be good Minipigs- given how much it owes to the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

As to France- before Napoleon it was a republic which had abolished slavery and the slave trade (and well before Britain did so). Napoleon turned France into a hereditary monarchy in which slavery in his colonies was reinstituted by his law. That is not being 'a little bit of a control freak'.

Turning one's country from a republic into a slave owning hereditary monarchy doesn't really sound like the actions of a hero with no choice to me. But Napoleon did do just that- didn't he?

"The price however, was an eventual loss of freedom for the people of France, as Napoleon had himself crowned emperor in 1804"

What freedoms were 'lost' when Napoleon became Emperor? The author doesn't explain this at all.

And her references for the short article are poor at best.

@Bill N

We beat the British in the War of 1812 Minipigs?

I didnt say this. I dont even necessarily feel the need to discuss it either way. We must consider what I wrote in context to a USA/Napoleonic mutual appreciation of liberties and their defense against a rather long lived, unstable tyrant in George III.

I said we beat the elite British units (From the Peninsular War) sent to take our liberties away at a little Battle at New Orleans. You can get the historical blow by blow here. YouTube link

Suffice to say that General Packenham never forgot the outcome; poor man.

In any case, the concept that Napoleon was a tyrant is amusing when compared to the entire structure of Britain's government and empire.

Well, the article is simplistic and subjective. Whether France was freer under Napoleon or the Revolution will probably occupy the next five pages.

The US Bill of Rights ought to be good Minipigs- given how much it owes to the English Bill of Rights of 1689.

Perhaps you could compare/contrast the two as a practical demonstration…

Weird, I was watching a film about the Battle of New Orleans yesterday afternoon…

Wiki – The Buccaneer 1958

…Charlton Heston portrayed Andrew Jackson (POTUS #7), and the battle was actually won by French pirates led by Yul Brynner's "Private Lafitte".

During the film I was able to mansplain that Louisiana had been divested by Napoleon only nine years beforehand.

Perhaps Louisiana can be returned to France at the same time as Britain returns the Elgin marbles to Greece.

@4th

Nice idea – but the Louisiana Purchase included the whole mid-west.

Wiki – Louisiana Purchase 1803

USA would be split asunder!

"a rather long lived, unstable tyrant in George III"

Poor old King George. A series of increasingly frequent breakdowns from 1801 culminated in 1810 with the metal collapse that lasted until his death ten years later, aged 82.

Long lived he was, cursed by mental affliction indeed, but a tyrant- hardly. In the constitutional democracy dating from 1689 he may have ruled; respected, honoured as the consecrated monarch in most quarters, to be sure; but he did not govern.

As for "we beat the elite British units… at a little battle at New Orleans"- it wasn't a football game ('We'?).

The British troops at New Orleans were beaten in the main by their own commanders who led them into a field of fire in front of the American breastwork and let them be shot to pieces- neutralising the British success in turning the American flank (while the folks up on the East coast were tidying up after a visit from some other elite British units).

As for "sent to take our liberties away"- Are you sure you have got the right war there?

Turning one's country from a republic into a slave owning hereditary monarchy doesn't really sound like the actions of a hero with no choice to me. But Napoleon did do just that- didn't he?

indeed, he was a reactionary to the boot. Nabulieone fawners might argue that slavery was "only" re introduced in the French colonies, but that is where it counts, not many slaves would live in continental France.

The British troops at New Orleans were beaten in the main by their own commanders who led them into a field of fire in front of the American breastwork and let them be shot to pieces- neutralising the British success in turning the American flank (while the folks up on the East coast were tidying up after a visit from some other elite British units).

The British Army was beaten on 8 January because of the superiority of the American artillery which quite literally shot them to pieces. The artillery was the big killer on the battlefield, seconded by musketry. The long rifle played little role in the action.

There were three actions during the campaign. The Americans conducted a night attack on the British position on 23 December, surprising the British encampment and engaging in a lively engagement then withdrawing. Losses were about even. The Americans lost 24 killed, 115 wounded, and 74 missing. The British lost 46 killed, 167 wounded, and 64 missing. Apparently most of the missing from both sides had been taken prisoner.

There was an artillery fight on 1 January which did not turn out well for the British.

The main battle took place on 8 January. The British assault was shredded by artillery fire and had 291 killed, 1262 wounded, and 484 missing or taken prisoner. The Americans had 13 killed, 39 wounded, and 19 missing.

As for other major actions in 1814, the British were defeated at Chippawa on the Niagara frontier, then fought the Americans to a bloody draw at Lundy's Lane. The British siege of Fort Erie was a bloody failure.

The main British army of invasion was defeated and turned back at Plattsburg mainly because their naval flotilla was destroyed on Lake Champlain by the American flotilla.

The British were successful at Bladensburg defeating a mostly militia force, though the British casualties were heavier and then took and burned Washington. They next turned on Baltimore and at North Point they fought a Maryland militia command which fought a successful delaying action and killed the British commander, General Ross. The British fleet failed at Fort McHenry.

British general officer casualties were heavy in 1814 with three dead and one badly wounded.

Basically, the operations on all fronts in 1814 were a string of British failures, even though after the siege of Fort Erie was successful for the Americans, they withdrew across the Niagara River after the siege. Their intent, however, was to recross in the spring of 1815.

Anyway, back to the original post. We still have-

-Napoleon re-establishing a hereditary monarchy in France. Yes, he did do that.

-Napoleon re-instituting by law both the slave trade and slavery itself in France's colonial possessions. Yes, he did do that too.

I haven't seen any dissent from those factual points.

OK Kevin, so who burned the Whitehouse down then?

I already posted that the British burned Washington. If that's the 'claim to fame' you want to hang your discussion on, then please continue. ADmirals Cochrane and Cockburn definitely had arsonist tendencies witness their 'activities' in the Chesapeake.

The British failed in 1814-1815 both on the battlefield and on campaign with a few exceptions. And what little they did accomplish did not help their war effort.

Did you ever wonder why Wellington refused the command in North America?

As an interesting sidenote, when the White House was sandblasted in the early 1990s, they found the scorch marks on the original walls at the windows. Before repainting, they had the Smithsonian come over and photograph the walls. We were visiting then and one of the uniformed secret service officers told us that as he saw it.

No, I don`t hang any argument on that alone…

But instead, why not consider a failed annexation of Canada?

The US had better luck taking a war to Mexico!

Does anyone know how much of the Code was written by Napoleon and how much was the work of his legal team of magistrates?

Napoleon didn't write any of it. He wanted it done in order to give France one set of laws which she did not have. In actuality there was no such thing as 'French law.' There were many regional codes, Napoleon commenting to Talleyrand that France was 'a nation with 300 books of laws yet without laws.'

Two general types of law were practiced in France: 'customary' law in northern France and Roman law in southern France. What Napoleon wanted to accomplish was combine the best in old French law with the rights of man.

He chose four men to actually write the new code: Tronchet and Bigot de Preameneu from northern France and Portalis and Malleville from southern France. He gave them six months to produce a new code of laws which would be produced in a draft to be discussed and debated in the Council of State. The points in the draft were discussed and debated point by point, most or which Napoleon was in agreement with the four lawyers. He was not present for all of the sessions of the debates, but he was present for fifty-seven of them, more than half. And Napoleon did not always get what he preferred in the new code.

The 2,281 articles in the new Civil Code were drafter between July and December of 1800. Tronchet and Portalis were the two main drafters of the Code. Napoleon's contributions to the Code were first, the reestablishment of law and order in France, without which any code of laws would be worthless. He was the driver to get it drafter quickly and he had it written not in legalese but in a clear style so that the average French citizen, the man-in-the-street, could understand it.

Napoleon was not the author of the Code, but the facilitator and the driving force behind it.

No, I don`t hang any argument on that alone…But instead, why not consider a failed annexation of Canada? The US had better luck taking a war to Mexico!

The taking of Canada was not a US war aim, despite the propaganda indicating that it was. Invading Canada was the only way the US could get at the British on land. That is why it was done.

For more information you might want to take a look at Don't Give Up the Ship: Myths of the War of 1812 by Don Hickey. He explains the idea of annexing Canada, where it came from, and why it wasn't a war aim of the US in declaring war.

link

Further, The War of 1812: Writings from America's Second War of Independence edited by Don Hickey, contains primary source documents from the period, clearly shows that the war aims of the US were maritime, not annexation of Canada.

link

A great defense of America there Kevin…

"The acquisition of Canada this year, as far as the neighborhood of Quebec, will be a mere matter of marching; & will give us experience for the attack of Halifax the next, & the final expulsion of England from the American continent."
Thomas Jefferson

…these were empty words then?

This though was wonderfully counter-balanced by your information about that Code, which I was fishing for!
You don`t sound at all like the Bounapartist that people paint you!

Jefferson was not the president in 1812.

Take a look at the references, especially the primary source material, and you'll find out that the acquisition of Canada was not one of the war aims of the US.

The high-handedness of the British government in its treatment of neutrals which led to impressment on the high seas of US seamen, was one of the main reasons for the war.

And, no, I'm not a Bonapartist.

From Don't Give Up the Ship by Don Hickey:

'Most scholars have stressed that maritime issues, particularly the Orders-in-Council and impressment, caused the war [of 1812], and this view has the weight of evidence behind it. Whether speaking in Congress, in their newspapers, in the diplomatic documents, or in personal letters, Americans in the years before the War of 1812 devoted far more attention to the maritime issues than to the prospect of acquiring Canada.'-37.

'There is another way of looking at this matter. Without the maritime issues, is it likely that the United States would have declared war on Great Britain in 1812 to get Canada? Probably not. However, if the United States had had no territorial ambitions, is it likely that it still would have gone to war in 1812 over the maritime issues? Probably so. In short, what drove American foreign policy in this period was not the wish to acquire Canada (as desirable as this might be) but a determination to win recognition for what contemporaries called 'Free Trade and Sailors' Rights.'-39

'Canada was not the end but the means, the object of the war being the redress of injuries, and Canada being the instrument by which that redress was to be obtained.'-Henry Clay

'The conquest of Canada was neither 'a motive to commence the war or a primary object.'' 'It was 'an inevitable consequence.''-Thomas Wilson.

Napoleon fundamentally disagreed with one of the key aims of the revolution, namely abolition of the monarchy. What he supported was the abolition of the current monarch, and the replacement of him and the Bourbon dynasty by himself and the Bonaparte dynasty. He also thought Bourbon and other monarchs in other territories should be replaced by Bonaparte dynasty monarchs there as well. But he was wholly behind the principle of absolute, unaccountable hereditary monarchy kept in place by armed force, as long as he was the monarch.

Where did you come up with this nonsense? Napoleon supported the Revolution and the abolishing of the Bourbon dynasty. And he had the 'opportunity' to bring back the Bourbons during the Consulate and refused.

What he did believe was that he could govern better than the Bourbons, and probably anyone else, and in that belief he proved himself to be correct.

According to Baron Fain, Napoleon's political beliefs were liberal and he firmly believed in 'equality of rights.' Those aspects were clearly demonstrated in the myriad reforms he brought to France after becoming head of state.

Destroying the White House is ample proof of a British ideological desire to stamp out the USA and its liberties.

Although Napoleon had his flaws, he was the only reformer of any vision and with any authority among all of the major nations.

Brechtel points out that the code napoleon was a real reform and it was either adopted or influenced large numbers of law codes for other nations.

Two glaring issues in this forum are continuing insinuations from a minority of tone deaf posters that if Napoleon was not 100% perfect from the viewpoint of modern democratic sensibilities, he was a fraud

AND

That Britain saved the world from an anti-christ.

These premises are both too extreme. Change comes in phases and, long after Wellington and George III are relegated as relics, Napoleon kept the ball rolling for liberties that carry influence today.

Second, the surrounding monarchies were fighting for what exactly? Universal suffrage? Freedoms and liberties for the common man? Redistribution of property from the feudal and church estates to the poor? Abolition of slavery or serfdom?

So, yes, compared to a modern day liberal democrat, Napoleon comes off as somewhat autocratic and self serving but compared to his competition, he is the man who got the modern, secular, representative state established.

"Destroying the White House is ample proof of a British ideological desire to stamp out the USA and its liberties."

Can we unpack that assertion a little?

So the burning of York (now Toronto) in 1813 must, by the same logic, also prove the United States' desire to annex Canada?

Minipigs, your drinking the American Kool-Aid again. The British had very advanced forms of personal rights in the late 18th/early 19th century. Britain abolished slavery in the early 19th century. Canada became an independent country roughly 50 years after the Napoleonic Wars ended through peaceful means. Canada became an independent country at about the time the US was fighting an internal war, that was in part an argument, over whether negroes were to be included in the Bill of Rights.

And Brechtel it is a bit of slight of hand to say that taking Canada was not a US war aim. That might be because the US really didn't have any war aim. The country was divided on the war and inept planning by US military leaders reflected the lack of a clear strategic goal.

So the burning of York (now Toronto) in 1813 must, by the same logic, also prove the United States' desire to annex Canada?

Please- "stamp out Canada"

"The British had very advanced forms of personal rights in the late 18th/early 19th century. Britain abolished slavery in the early 19th century."

Like religious emancipation, universal suffrage, trades union rights, and free medical treatment at point of service… oh, wait.

To be fair, chattel slavery in the West Indies did not end until 1838.

And Brechtel it is a bit of slight of hand to say that taking Canada was not a US war aim. That might be because the US really didn't have any war aim. The country was divided on the war and inept planning by US military leaders reflected the lack of a clear strategic goal.

I've provided two credible references as to the US war aims and Canada. How is that 'slight of hand'?

The war aims, and the reason for the declaration of war, were the maritime issues such as impressment. That has also been provided to you. The above quoted comment is disingenuous.

…chattel slavery in the West Indies did not end until 1838.

The British and French abolished slavery in the West Indies about the same time.