Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, the Dictator - Essay Example

Lois Napoleon Bonaparte the Dictator Department Lois Napoleon Bonaparte the Dictator Eighteen-Fourteen to Nineteen-Fourteen was a turbulent century for France. In 1849, Louis Napoleon, France second emperor declared himself to be Napoleon III and focused on bringing France back into its lost glory (Taylor and Alan, 1954). France became successful in economy and Paris got the envy of the world. However, questions still remain, was Napoleon III a dictator? Of all the history of Europe, France history, perhaps, is the most amazing. The history takes epic nature since the great revolution inception. The history goes like a great novel rather than narrative of facts. Yet, the time after Napoleon fall, there is less interest from English writers even though tragic and interesting. The turbulent history of Europe, France in particular, gives a clear narrative of main political events, placed in the backdrop of economic, cultural and social change. Further innovative studies of France in the midst of 19th century, to the WWI outbreak gives a story of a period of outward tranquility and equally a period of scientific and political contention, social transformation, and economic growth (Robert, 1933). There were three empires of France, 1804 to 1814, 1815, and 1852 to 1870. During these changes, England had special concern either in peace or in war. France struggled with issues of constitution to fit all conditions. There was need for Napoleon I and Napoleon III empires, restored Bourbons constitutional monarchy, bourgeois Louis-Philippe citizen monarchy, Lamartine, Thiers, and Cavaignac republics, and MacMahon Septennate. Even though there was bewildering transformation in the constitution, Europe needs to be grateful to France, because France is the only country that tried the many constitutions. France in Rome and in religion remains significant. The intentions of France going into the 1914 war, was it for revenge? Did Germans also want war? This and many more revolutions marked the middle 19th century of France (Bavarian State Library, 1865). The most outstanding and significant however, is the discussion whether Napoleon III was a dictator or not. December Eighteen-Forty Eight, Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, was elected as Second Republic President. He was born in 1808 and was Napoleon Bonaparte nephew. Many political leaders in Paris during that period saw him as a lightweight whom manipulating was easy. They saw him as incompetent and not brilliant enough. The nation got surprised when Louis seized power in 1851 December 2, in a coup d’état becoming France ‘dictator’ (Taylor and Alan, 1954). He declared himself Napoleon III one year later. He set to return France to its glory in Europe in the second empire. Under Napoleon III, France glittered on surface; France became successful in many areas. In the reign of Napoleon III, French economy grew because of the high demand for goods from France. New system of banking made sure the financial house of France was in order. Many public works made Paris to be the envy of the world (Price, 2002). Baron Haussmann Georges improved and redesigned the city. Georges ripped the poor neighborhoods and replaced them with bourgeoisie’s apartments, architectural wonders, brownstones, straight and white boulevards, museums and many more. Previously volatile and radical capital in Europe, Paris took a conservative turn. It became easy to make policies, bourgeoisies forced workers into the neighboring suburbs while the wealthy came in plenty to the center of the city. Napoleon III achieved some failures and success in foreign policy. As the main supporter of Italian unification and the winner of Crimean war, Napoleon III made the foreign policy of France dominant, in Europe for a period. With Nice and Savoy under the fold of France, Napoleon III boasts an ending to the imposed encirclement on France after his Uncle, defeat. Nevertheless, his Mexico involvement turned a fiasco. Napoleon III sent military in 1861 to Mexico to appease Mexican countryside, putting Maximilian Austrian Archduke as Mexico emperor. France was the largest creditor of Mexico; therefore, Mexico’s conservative elite supported France. The elites opposed previous Mexico City President’s liberal policies. Unfortunately, Maximilian did not have the support of Mexico. When French withdrew its troops to fight in Europe, Maximilian became a victim of the famous uprising (Taylor and Alan, 1954). He underwent execution in summer 1867. This was damaging to France prestige and the civic criticism nearly brought down the regime of Napoleon III. France loss in Prussian hands in the war of Franco-Prussian became the main cause of the fall of the Second Empire. Prussian occupation in Paris led to the fleeing of Napoleon III. Prussia put up a republican government that was unstable basing on multiparty parliamentarianism and general suffering of people. In explaining success and failures of the second empire, it is important to view Napoleon III among the first contemporary politicians (Price, 2002). He was aware of public opinion role and skilled in managing of information and the external appearances. He began his civic work programs not in a simple way to make Paris livable- a significant purpose because Paris was crime-ridden and dirty, but also to express to the world and his public the way France had become wealthy and successful. Napoleon III wanted Paris to be the focal of world politics and culture. Despite being fiercely patriotic, Napoleon III did this to create an international prestige that affects public voting vital for sustaining his regime. He mastered contemporary “photo-up” and appearance in public before contemporary politics grew in other places like the United States (Taylor and Alan, 1954). The other success in France mainly the boom in economic, was not primarily by Napoleon III, but he gets credit for sustain it. Period of dictatorial and stable rule in Paris, attracted international investment previously lost, back to France. The period characterized sustainable growth in economy and increasing wages than prices. The wealthy got wealthier, although abject city poverty decreased. Established poverty remained even though Napoleon III promised to end it in his 1848 presidential election. However, nobody could deny that France economy was thriving and France was doing great. A perspective of France on the surface during the reign of Napoleon III is somehow different from the internal perspective (Taylor and Alan, 1954). Napoleon III was a dictator. His characteristics and actions are comparable to that of a dictator. Napoleon III had an imposing authority. Under his rule, workers suffered and displaced while the bourgeoisies thrived. He imposed leaders and participated in battles for self-interest. Many people remember him for different military ventures both domestically and beyond borders. This include the participation of France in Crimean war, Senegal conquest, war of second opium, Cochinchina campaign, second Italian independence war, Franco-Mexican war, Rebellion of Taiping, movement against Korea in 1866, Boshin war, and the war of Franco-Prussian. According to Baguley (2000) Napoleon III was his uncles pocket version, whom memories were still present within the French in 1840s. Napoleon III romanticized and brushed up French masses with his rule. Yet nephew and uncle differed; Napoleon I was a demagogue who came on revolutionary age wave and pushed on by genius for diplomacy and welfare (Alain, 1988). The nephew was an epigone who gained by the imponderable environment surrounding the big name that became a myth. It is a fact that Napoleon III was a member of secret mafia and plotted in exile. Middle-class England Queen Victoria treated Napoleon as an equal and had hope that one day he would appease his nation and return it to prosperity and order. Despite the astounding 1851 coup d’état, something semi-legitimate remained concerning this outcome of a big usurper (Price, 2002). Napoleon I made himself by his military leadership ways, Napoleon III by his lineage and craftiness exploitation of fresh democracy that he lulled to conformity by careful different promises to its varying sections. Napoleon III gagged the plebiscitarian democracy by using his means to his autocratic regime advantage. He threatened, suppressed and persuaded people into submission similar to what Hitler did 80 year later. However, he did not have the demonic device as of Hitler. Instead, Napoleon III had gastronome leanings that made him choose spectacles over bread, sometimes used guns as the bait for the people though not regularly. Napoleon III, Hyde and Jekyll, had two men within himself as his modern de Tocqueville monitored. The one went true to the type experienced in age: this is Napoleon III as “fatalist dreamer, ex-conspirator, who saw himself, referred France Master and by her conquer Europe” (Bavarian State Library, 1865, p.g 112). However, he was also in another trend, apt to confuse and cross his determined plans as Europe Emperor “epicurean enjoying lazily a comfort atypical, and superficial pleasures that his current state bought him, and not willing to loss by tying to rise higher” (Bresler, 1999, 86). Far from being a strong cold man, Napoleon III in some sense was dictator malgre’ lui, therefore, depended more on the great bureaucracy and swift police than his stoic and forceful ancestor. Napoleon III system of control and repression was neither so ruthless nor as systematic as of Fouché. All the same, it used many instruments and methods that Fouché developed and later under second republic, Orleans and Bourbons regimes had never and disappeared. If it was more capricious, haphazard, and ineffective than despotism of Fouché, it stayed for long period without interference and unchecked. How possible was this? How could a mediocre person have so much power? (Taylor and Alan, 1954) Napoleon exercised his dictatorial reign affected by the increase in material. He encouraged the construction of the railway and through construction boom rebuilt Paris. He authorized investment banks in France. His foreign policy became successful initially. Paris Congress and Crimean war returned the leadership of France in Europe. Napoleon III then focused on Italy. He supported Italian Nationalism for a long time; he met Premier Cavour Camillo of Sardinian at Plombieres and in secret made agreement of a joint movement by Sardinia and France to eject Austria from Italy and make a four state Italian federation with the Pope as the president. France compensation was Savoy and Nice. Thus, there was war in 1859. Nevertheless, after the expensive victory of the Sardinians and the French at Solferino, Napoleon III left the Italian ally and made different peace at Villafranca di Verona with Austria. His motivation was because of Clerical Party of France that was the opposition. Napoleons III reign put the interest of big bourgeoisies ahead. It established a tough dictatorship full of police brutality and terror. The regime persecuted first international leaders. Napoleon III demagogically flirted with workers and convinced the classic policy of Bonapartist of side maneuvering. Scared by the growth of revolutionary activity by the people in 1860’s, he tried to create liberal reforms. For instance, the 1864 statute put an end to ban on strikes, and in 1868 introduced partial freedom. The concessions could not stop increase in social discontent. The regime of Napoleon raged many aggression wars. Bonapartism was correct religion of contemporary bourgeoisies. It became clear that the bourgeoisies did not intend to rule directly, thus took the form of semi-dictatorship. Napoleon III believed that his destiny was to rule France. He referred to his program in words that the name Napoleon is a whole program in itself. It wants to say at order, religion, authority, home, national dignity, well-being of people, and abroad. Because France ran for 50 years by virtue of judicial, financial institutions, military, administrative of the empire, why could France adopt political institutions of the same period? After his election as the president, Louis told his friend that it was only the beginning of the republic (Alain, 1988). The Emperor as the chief of state, Napoleon III controlled the police, civil service, and the armed forces. He was the only person who could bring legislation and carry out foreign policy. Legislative corps, a duly elected body lost authority (Robert, 1933). In fact, it became the parliament rubber stamp of enacting sham constitutional regime to gild the dictatorial government. Nonetheless, Napoleon III was not an ordinary dictator, rather a restrained politician who understood that the French people did not care much about constitution specific. This is evident when he declared himself the emperor with less resistance from the people. The French people were keen to have economic prosperity, respect internationally, and a stable regime. According to Kissinger Henry, France voters speak like communist and elect like conservatives. Napoleon III realized this contradiction and built his regime upon it. In the 1851 December 2, coup d’état, Napoleon III was successful in muzzling the public and parliament opinion because he secured police and army co-operation in time (Baguley, 2000). In the earlier months, he convinced Paris Police prefect, Maupas, and General Magnan the Paris troop’s commander, to help him overthrow the Republic. Both General Magnan and Maupas held grudge against the day democratic power. They laid their stake in the opposite side. Maupas was once a minister of Guizot under Philippe Louis and his official, found his career cut short suddenly by the rise of the Republic, and was ready for action that will offer him an opportunity for vengeance and to rise once again. On the other hand, Magnan was a distinguished and professional soldier, an attribute in any contemporary nation. He was determined, strong admiring action, brave, and capable of handling it “despising methods of parliamentary and understanding parties naught” (Bavarian State Library, 1865, 211). Dictatorship idea intrigues efficient soldiers like Magnan where the army can participate a stronger section than in republic. For this particular case, Bonaparte name was a magnet. Napoleon III half brother De Morny was in the plot too. De Morny was an established figure in the Stock Exchange. Additionally, the President reached his co-conspirators with goodies. A day before the coup Napoleon distributed different packets; De Morny got 500000 francs plus the appointment as Interior Minister. Abundant funds were available for the generals, men, and officers ready to end the Republic (Bresler, 1999). Police Prefect Maupas who became Police Minister, got 500000 francs and dossier having names of generals, their deputies and politicians who were not corrupt. He was to arrest them. There were more 100000 francs paid to servants, clerks and other essential informers. Napoleon III was in pole position to get huge sums of money as tool for the coup by a secret trade with Bank of France directors. The barter proved advantageous for both sides. Second December, shocked Parisians found large posters n city walls having kind president’s invitation “to accord him powers essential for creating constitution” (Robert, 1933, p.g 86). People realized Napoleon III called the whole army to help them vote correctly. The coup d’état in way appeared like and intensified action of the police, made real by army. Forty- eight superintendents at dawn helped by soldiers and gendarmes arrested 78 party leaders and deputies, Republicans and Royalists too. They did not resist and a number of them such as Thiers, even felt relieved not being able to decide a stand. Freemasons and Journalist too were arrested since resistance from them may “compromise police” (Alain, 1988, p.g 109) The entire coup was brought to the frightened public as police measure for police, while the act of the army got justification in the name of honor and discipline and assurance that they had ‘glory memories of Napoleon III in their hearts.’ It is an attribute of contemporary dictatorship to legitimize and legalize illegal actions and get the people’s support. Louis Bonaparte was responsible for the inauguration of plebiscites system that became a significant cover for the autocrat rule, flourishing on the acquiescence of stunned and frightened people. Persuasion, repression, and control remain powerful tools in the possession of people who do not want to be scared by a serious rival. 21st December 1851, people of France by 7, 500, 000 against the 640,000, while there were 1,500,000 absenteeism, gave Napoleon III the mandate to create ‘constitution’ in line with the policy he pursued that month of fate (Robert, 1933). Without doubt, public need for security helped in the extent of his achievement. Napoleon III exploited the myth of Bonaparte in fullest and admitted, “he transgressed legitimacy” through coup d’état with claims that he returned to the right path by plebiscite. Many people got exhausted of the parliamentary struggles that were unsuccessful and of helpless party discord, which he clearly understood. Whereas this civic acquiescence was a single motive giving explanation how it was easy for Napoleon III to institute dictatorship, the other was the Presidents grip on technical machinery as a strong support to his theoretical political conceptions. The dictatorship of Napoleon III cannot be well comprehended without noticing the truth of its similar correlation with a complex bureaucracy. Initially designed by Napoleon I, grew under different regimes, it was, it its attribute, ready for deployment as a tool, excellently serving the needs of a centralized regime. In his excellent area on “Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte” (Karl, 1956), Karl Marx was the first person to realize the great bureaucracy power that against bourgeois community, had powerfully equipped its position. The police formed part of the bureaucratic machinery it needed adoption in the new requirements. There was less change required for the police to perform its mandate, both supervision and repression of people. The fact however remains that the dictatorship and repressive of Napoleon III was not so dire as compared to the twentieth century dictatorship. Nevertheless, they were radical enough. Few days after the coup, Napoleon III gave a decree that suggested himself the privilege of deporting secret society member to Cayenne or Algiers. Old assembly members were either removed shortly or banished from France a month later. Soon a slight distinction between normal legal procedures and others came clear by special circular means to prefects. It was a requirement that they give the government list of revolutionaries or democrats, immediately imprisoned after putsch. All through the nation, constables, judges, sub-prefects, and prefects endeavored to substantiate their significance to the state by hunting down suspects with the assistance of wide intelligence service. Many studies that find Napoleon III a dictator highlight that he got power illegally, outsmarted the other consuls and made himself the emperor. This needed power just like other dictators. Napoleon III was obsessed with war and led France it many battles, some that were costly. Napoleon III shipped criminals and political prisoners to penal colonies like New Caledonia and Devil’s Island. The emperor, by then a bachelor, quickly started looking for a wife to give him and apparent legitimate heir. Most royalties in Europe were not willing to marry into the family of Parvenu Bonaparte. Napoleon lowered his vision and decided to marry “out of love” (Robert, 1933). He married Eugenie de Montijo, Teba Countess. There were two attempts to assassinate Napoleon III. That was April 1855 and January 1858. The regime of Napoleon until 1861 had characteristics of authoritarian regime. After the coup, Europe proudest nation lay in dictator’s feet. Putting her destines in mad, in him, overwhelming confidence and blind. Monarchy of July involved liberty without progress; the second empire became progress without liberty. Events followed each other during this epoch with confusing rapidity. While the lights of Paris shone brilliantly in the honor on Napoleon III, he did not lose a moment of working. He made commission to try insurgents and anyone suspected to be hostile to his regime. There was deportation of thousands of rogues to Algeria. Almost 6000 were under the supervision of police, while almost 3000 underwent confinement in their provinces. However, the emperor in the middle of this stern annihilation of the dangerous people, understood how to anger determination with mercy. In a short while the many representatives arrested swiftly in the early morning of the coup got liberty. Napoleon III used this sign of gesture to cover his tracks and actions. No one remained to restrain political supremacy of Napoleon III. The army was enthusiastic, had the favor of popular opinion and all-important institutions were in his subjection, from the parliament, to the press and the ministries. The regime of Napoleon was an absolute monarchy. A major mistake that the French cannot forgive their rulers is failure. Napoleon got every concession that he needed from the voters; privileges and every freedom vestige were kindly given up. France depended on the personality of Napoleon III. People rounded up during the coup appeared before varied commissions formed by military authorities and civil representatives, normally a lawyer, a high official and a general. The process gave Napoleon III minimum of objectivity and legality, the commission made their verdict without basing on the evidence, appeal or process. There were no direct sentences of death, but there was death in the back door, by means of guillotine seche. This is bloodless axe, where people were transported to Lambessa or Guiana. Here rigorous treatment and deadly climate achieved their expected outcome. Court sentencing was political, their purpose being protecting the new government rather than protecting justice. The purpose of dictatorship was to eliminate real and potential opponents, in an effective way. De Morny made claims that there was any other means to attain Bonapartism foes and end civil war. The accused characters were not on their deeds nor decisive, but due to their attitude about the new regime. Thus, village mayors, workers, artisans even though they did nothing or little were sentenced for ten or five years in the wilderness of Lambessa or Cayenne (Alain, 1988). This became the golden period for the informers. There was different treatment of diplomats and well-known politicians on one hand ordinary political prisoners on another. Deported diplomats could return if they conformed to the new order. Propagandist of politics such as Hugo Victor was exiled from France. Napoleon did great things for France but was not a good leader because he only thought about himself. He developed schools for all that appears a great thing but the major reason was to have discipline and intelligent officials to lead his army. He knew how to disguise evil by good, a classic dictator. Code of Napoleonic helped France but also resurfaced old ways gotten rid off such as men being superior than women. Women thus were to homemakers under Napoleon III (Bresler, 1999). The purpose of revolution was to eliminate Monarchy, but Napoleon declared himself an Emperor. This gave him powers to do as he wished. Napoleon did other good things such as making sure that everyone pay similar tax and opening banks and financial institutions. His rule however, was bad in Europe. Trade with Britain came to a halt by the introduction of continental system. This affected many people, bringing the feeling of Napoleon bad regime to the masses. During the Franco-Prussian war, Napoleon ignored the growth in strength of Prussia and was neutral when Prussia triumphed against Austria in the 1866 seven weeks war. Napoleon was not aware of the weakness of the French army in 1870 (Price, 2002). He permitted himself to be irritated into calling war on Prussia. This was a great scheme Prussia Chancellor Bismarck. He personally directed the French army. The capturing of Napoleon took place in Sedan. A revolution occurred in Paris. The emperor, Napoleon III was dethroned and there was proclamation of the Republic on 4 September. Napoleon got permission to go to England after short period of imprisonment, joining his son and empress. Two years later, Napoleon died. His son joined the army of British and died fighting the Zulus in Southern Africa. The regime of Napoleon III made many great things, but the leader always disguised evil with good. He had personal interests. He remains a complex personality in many studies. He joined traits of liberalism and genuine idealism with ruthless and authoritarian self-aggrandizement. Even though not as impressive as his uncle, he was sharp enough to take advantage of Napoleonic image and administer skillfully, though dictatorially. The regime of Napoleon III is an important aspect in the history of France between 1814 and 1914. References List Alain P. 1988. The Rise and Fall of the Second Empire, 1852–1871 Baguley, D. 2000. Napoleon III and His Regime: An Extravaganza. Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press Bavarian State Library.1865. Napoleon III the Third and his Court by a Retired Diplomatist. J. Marwell & Comp. Bramstedt, E. 1998. Dictatorship and Political Police: The Technique of Control by Fear. Chicago: Psychology Press Bresler, F.1999. Napoleon III: A Life. HarperCollins Publishers Limited Brent, N. 1995. Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his Enemies. Constable Charles, E. 2007. Napoleon’s Wars. Allen Lane David, B. 2007. The First Total War: Napoleon’s Europe and the Birth of Modern Warfare. London: Bloomsbury David, C. 2001. Napoleon. South Yorkshire: Pen and Sword David, W. 2003. A Duel of Giants: Bismarck, Napoleon III, and the Origins of the Franco-Prussian War. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. Graham, B.1933. Napoleon III .Duckworth Indiana University Gunther, R. 1999. The Napoleonic Wars Cassell Jonathon, R. 2007. Napoleon as a general: command from the battlefield to grand strategy Hambledon Continuum. Marx, K. 1956. “Vosemnadtsatoe briumera Lui Bonaparta.” In K. Marx and F. Engels, Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 8.Zhelubovskaia, E. A. Krushenie Vtoroi imperii i vozniknovenie Tret’ei respubliki vo Frantsii. Moscow. Owen, C. 2006. Blundering to Glory: Napoleon’s Military Campaigns. Washington DC: Rowman and Littlefield Price, R. 2002. Napoleon III and the Second Empire. London: Routledge Robert, S. 1933. Napoleon III: The Modern Emperor. Indiana: Indiana University Taylor, Alan J. 1954. The Struggle for Mastery of Europe. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University. Read More