-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
A letter is sent to M. Gillet @Somberg and M. Deflandre @Firehound15
Dearest Messieurs,
As you may, or may not, have noticed in between your busy workdays directing and decreeing how the new France will look, the appeal of my sentence I sent some time ago. I do understand that being as busy as you are, it would be terribly hard to focus on such a small thing, when the lack of oversight is clearly apparent and considering the internal squabbles it is no wonder that such a lack exist.
I will however, reapply my appeal and state my reasons why. You get nothing out of keeping Marshal soon to sixty in jail for the next twenty years as I am surely no threat to your newly established Provisional Council, that has gained its right to rule from the anarchistic map that helped put it into power.
My loyalties as a respected general and marshal, do not lie with any monarch or but with France and the French people alone. Therefore there will remain no ill will or hatred on my side on the country that is France, and the French people that I will continue to serve if allowed to, or serve later if need be. As my father, Bon-Adrien de Moncey, I serve France first and foremost, whoever and whatever is leading it is of little importance.
Some might call me a murderer, I do however dispute these claims as I only attempted to provide law and order when none such was present in Paris at the time. I do my duty when I am called for to defend the integrity of France.
Due to these reasons, I hope that you will reevaluate the sentence given.
Best Regards,
Maréchal de France
((Private))
M. Moncey,
I thank you for your patience during this appeals process. The Provisional Government has had a lot on our plate, and I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. Ultimately the French Republic is a nation of laws, justice, and freedoms. To deny you these would be the greatest hypocrisy. As such, we have considered the nature of the charges against you. Along with the Public Prosecutor of Paris, we have decided to charge you with several hundred counts of murder for the events of February 15, 1850. You were in charge of the response of the Ministry on this day, and are thus responsible for the overly brutal actions of some members of the military that lead to the deaths of many innocent lives.
You will have a fair trial by a Jury and Judge here in Paris. You, of course, have a right to an attorney of your choice to represent you. If you can not afford one, the Provisional Government is happy to provide you with one if you request it.
On behalf of the French Republic,
Louis-Alexandre Clement
Minister of the Interior
((I am happy to edit this if KH wishes to provide me with a specific number of the deaths during the Revolution))
M. Clement,
The charge I appealed for was the charge I was sentenced twenty years for the Abrogation of the Charter of 1830, as I was never charged with murder. Abrogation the sentence I was appealing to, and then charging me with murder right away is bizarre, and must be an error from the ministry. Someone must have had mixed documents.
Best regards,
Maréchal de France
Maréchal de France
M. Clement,
The charge I appealed for was the charge I was sentenced twenty years for the Abrogation of the Charter of 1830, as I was never charged with murder. Abrogation the sentence I was appealing to, and then charging me with murder right away is bizarre, and must be an error from the ministry. Someone must have had mixed documents.
Best regards,
Maréchal de France
((Private))
M. Moncey,
My sincerest apologies. This does indeed seem to be a clerical error. This is an embarrassing error and we will do all we can to ensure something like this does not ever happen again. I once again apologize profusely.
Regarding your case, in the time since you were first sentenced, new evidence has come to light regarding your case. As such, we have decided to grant you a trial de novo on the charge of abetting the abrogation of the Charter of 1830.
I once again apologize for the error, and regret immensely.
Louis-Alexandre Clement
Minister of the Interior
Monsieur,
My father wrote to me some days ago to warn that he had given his consent to our correspondence, and now that your letter has arrived I am pleased that he did. The circumstances of our last goodbye were indeed unfortunate, and while I cannot in any way fault you for them, I am glad that you have taken it upon yourself to make amends. I enjoyed my stay in Vienna a great deal more than I had anticipated, and I owe you a debt of gratitude for your consummate hospitality.
I understand that you have since resigned your diplomatic position and now wish to take up politics. While bearing witness to the events in Paris has been thrilling, I fear the reality will inevitably prove much less picturesque. My father is better placed than I to make such judgements – for in truth I am not placed at all! – but it does seem that principle rather tends to get left behind as the body politic rolls over anew. Where this means the breaking down of entrenched dogmas, one might have cause to rejoice – but more often I fear it gives license to unchecked ambition, which misapplied is a fatally ruinous thing. I pray you stay free of such dangers.
My own family have, it must be said, seen little in the way of harm. My father and my brother are both in England, and it appears that this is unlikely to change any time soon; either my father has resigned himself to the new regime, or else it to he. (One suspects given the precarity of the English situation that it is perhaps the latter.) As for my mother and I, little revolution reaches Calvados. We are quite sheltered here in Normandy, and in the circumstances we should perhaps be thankful. Both of my grandfathers were, in their own ways, victims of Revolution; I dare say for all our sakes my father should be glad not to have continued this tradition.
Meanwhile, I should be glad indeed if we might continue our correspondence. What sweet relief it could be from this rural existence to have contact with Paris! Once you are done with your election, I am quite sure some more personal meeting might be arranged.
My father wrote to me some days ago to warn that he had given his consent to our correspondence, and now that your letter has arrived I am pleased that he did. The circumstances of our last goodbye were indeed unfortunate, and while I cannot in any way fault you for them, I am glad that you have taken it upon yourself to make amends. I enjoyed my stay in Vienna a great deal more than I had anticipated, and I owe you a debt of gratitude for your consummate hospitality.
I understand that you have since resigned your diplomatic position and now wish to take up politics. While bearing witness to the events in Paris has been thrilling, I fear the reality will inevitably prove much less picturesque. My father is better placed than I to make such judgements – for in truth I am not placed at all! – but it does seem that principle rather tends to get left behind as the body politic rolls over anew. Where this means the breaking down of entrenched dogmas, one might have cause to rejoice – but more often I fear it gives license to unchecked ambition, which misapplied is a fatally ruinous thing. I pray you stay free of such dangers.
My own family have, it must be said, seen little in the way of harm. My father and my brother are both in England, and it appears that this is unlikely to change any time soon; either my father has resigned himself to the new regime, or else it to he. (One suspects given the precarity of the English situation that it is perhaps the latter.) As for my mother and I, little revolution reaches Calvados. We are quite sheltered here in Normandy, and in the circumstances we should perhaps be thankful. Both of my grandfathers were, in their own ways, victims of Revolution; I dare say for all our sakes my father should be glad not to have continued this tradition.
Meanwhile, I should be glad indeed if we might continue our correspondence. What sweet relief it could be from this rural existence to have contact with Paris! Once you are done with your election, I am quite sure some more personal meeting might be arranged.
In anticipation,
Marie-Joséphine
Post-Script: You may call me Marie if that is your wish, but it might please you to know that to those who are close to me I am Josette. I leave the use of this knowledge to your discretion.Marie-Joséphine
VOTRE EXCELLENCE -- I am most pleased to receive your acceptance of an invitation to Houghton Hall, and happily extend the same to your son, Emmanuel, who may indeed profit from an occasion to enjoy the East Anglian countryside. It was only three days ago that the Duke of Richmond, when paying a call to Houghton, remarked that it had been some time since the estate had hosted its famed chasse. When informed that such an event would be held shortly, his enthusiasm could not be contained.
Whereas the situation in Norfolk seems merrily to continue in its timeless way, it would appear that the circumstance in our native France has drastically altered since our last correspondence. I am given to understand, albeit only by means of what one can glean from the newspapers and by intermittent messages from across the Channel, that the Duc d’Orléans is now the dearly departed, and that a Republic has been proclaimed by a self-styled Provisional Council. Further, through of a letter from the Comte de la Marche (@Sneakyflaps), I have gathered that a Constituent Assembly is being formed, charged with the duty of drafting a new constitution for the Republic.
The death of the Duc d’Orléans weighs heavily on my mind. I am informed that he, after suffering some time from a fever, slipped readily into immortality. I have conveyed my condolences in writing to his family, but hope to secure from the newly installed authorities in France, permission to return to those shores to pay my last respects in person. In that cause, I received instruction to contact a certain M. Gillet -- a figure hitherto unknown to me, who, I am told, has risen to some prominence within this provisional clique -- seeking permission to re-enter the country, and remain hopeful that it will be granted.
It would, by convention, have been more appropriate for me to contact Your Excellency, in your capacity as Ambassador, to make such arrangement. Nonetheless, the circumstances of my exile and the bedlam in France furnish the reasons for such an irregular attempt on my part to gain authorization for un retour.
Indeed, taking note of these monumental shifts, I ask first your pardon lest the style of address at the outset of this letter -- to wit, the use of “Your Excellency” -- be one which you have chosen to renounce on account of the sudden and drastic change in Government. To be sure, it would be a great loss to France were you to relinquish the ambassadorial post. Should you opt to remain in the plenipotentiary role, I imagine that diplomatic channels will have provided a more complete understanding of current circumstances in France, and would be glad were you able to share, to the extent permitted, any news from across La Manche. Veuillez agréer, Votre Excellence ou le titre que vous préférez, mes salutations distinguées.
Votre Altesse,
I am happy indeed to hear that la chasse is soon upon us. My son and I look forward to receiving your generous hospitality with considerable anticipation, the reputation of Houghton being as it is. You make reference to this situation in France, and indeed it is grave, yet we endure – and so does the hunt. For this we may at least give small thanks.
If you if you will permit me to address the contents of your last letter in a somewhat roundabout way, you enquire as to the nature of events in Paris. I thought it prudent before I continue to give some account of what I understand to have transpired, having been in contact recently with one M. Deflandre, who I understand has acquired the stewardship of the Foreign Ministry in the aftermath of the change in regime. Indeed, the unhappy disturbance of the peace – if we are to call the government of the past years peaceful – stemmed in no small part from the demise of the late duc d'Orléans, whose reign as King, conflicted thought it might have been, did largely succeed in unifying those quarrelling Deputies, who over the last two decades set aside their differences in the pursuit of that unedifying goal: enrichissez-vous. Publicly, having founded a career on the basis of academic opposition to the Orléaniste regime, I cannot regret too profoundly its replacement, which even before the fact seemed inevitable. I find little good in deterministic views of history, Monsieur, but I feel it a negotiable stretch to hazard that a coalition of convenience, ill-defined and based only on the expanded freedom of one group of men, will not long past the realisation of other men that such freedoms are to be withheld from them still. Such was the failure of the Settlement of 1830: what it prevented in the ambition of singular men, it let flourish amongst a whole class of men with ambition. Thus was the government of France founded for twenty years on an uneasy and limited prosperity.
This prosperity having in recent years been shown to have been illusory, all pretence of legitimacy evaporated from the Orléaniste cause, which had compromised itself by association with envious ministers – as had the Bourbons twenty years before. Thus the convenient Orléaniste history shattered and was replaced by the chaos of an alienated public, who have now organised as a government of their own. Insofar as it can curb its tyrannical ambitions in the name of good governance, I have no reason to believe the ministers of the Provisional Council to be any better fundamentally than the erstwhile ministers of the Councils of State, who after all have so far proven themselves impotent twice during my lifetime. Of course, I was once one such minister, and thus in the coming months I shall no doubt reckon with my own small legacy in this unhappy farrago.
What I mean to say by all of this discussion is that I have happily been able to maintain my position at St. James’, having reached such a stage where the importance of my English mission outweighs any old academic temptation to attach judgements of value to the inherent nature of one form of government or another. You could say that the infant Republic and I have, for now, achieved an entente. I shall reassess the state of things when I find myself unable to reserve my judgement any longer.
As for your business, the decision to bypass official channels is quite understandable when the officiality of such channels is so uncertain. Nevertheless, should you find M. Gillet uninterested in your appeals, I shall put myself at your service in attempting to secure the ear of M. Deflandre. In spite of any quarrel I may have once had for the institution he represented, the duc d'Orléans was a benevolent figure, and furthermore I would find it difficult to place much of the blame for the failures of the Orléaniste regime at his feet. If if you find yourself able to travel to pay your last respects, I would humbly request that you convey mine also, unable as I am to leave England.
I look forward to a freer discussion of these affairs in person when we meet soon at Houghton. Until then, please accept my warmest regards.
I am happy indeed to hear that la chasse is soon upon us. My son and I look forward to receiving your generous hospitality with considerable anticipation, the reputation of Houghton being as it is. You make reference to this situation in France, and indeed it is grave, yet we endure – and so does the hunt. For this we may at least give small thanks.
If you if you will permit me to address the contents of your last letter in a somewhat roundabout way, you enquire as to the nature of events in Paris. I thought it prudent before I continue to give some account of what I understand to have transpired, having been in contact recently with one M. Deflandre, who I understand has acquired the stewardship of the Foreign Ministry in the aftermath of the change in regime. Indeed, the unhappy disturbance of the peace – if we are to call the government of the past years peaceful – stemmed in no small part from the demise of the late duc d'Orléans, whose reign as King, conflicted thought it might have been, did largely succeed in unifying those quarrelling Deputies, who over the last two decades set aside their differences in the pursuit of that unedifying goal: enrichissez-vous. Publicly, having founded a career on the basis of academic opposition to the Orléaniste regime, I cannot regret too profoundly its replacement, which even before the fact seemed inevitable. I find little good in deterministic views of history, Monsieur, but I feel it a negotiable stretch to hazard that a coalition of convenience, ill-defined and based only on the expanded freedom of one group of men, will not long past the realisation of other men that such freedoms are to be withheld from them still. Such was the failure of the Settlement of 1830: what it prevented in the ambition of singular men, it let flourish amongst a whole class of men with ambition. Thus was the government of France founded for twenty years on an uneasy and limited prosperity.
This prosperity having in recent years been shown to have been illusory, all pretence of legitimacy evaporated from the Orléaniste cause, which had compromised itself by association with envious ministers – as had the Bourbons twenty years before. Thus the convenient Orléaniste history shattered and was replaced by the chaos of an alienated public, who have now organised as a government of their own. Insofar as it can curb its tyrannical ambitions in the name of good governance, I have no reason to believe the ministers of the Provisional Council to be any better fundamentally than the erstwhile ministers of the Councils of State, who after all have so far proven themselves impotent twice during my lifetime. Of course, I was once one such minister, and thus in the coming months I shall no doubt reckon with my own small legacy in this unhappy farrago.
What I mean to say by all of this discussion is that I have happily been able to maintain my position at St. James’, having reached such a stage where the importance of my English mission outweighs any old academic temptation to attach judgements of value to the inherent nature of one form of government or another. You could say that the infant Republic and I have, for now, achieved an entente. I shall reassess the state of things when I find myself unable to reserve my judgement any longer.
As for your business, the decision to bypass official channels is quite understandable when the officiality of such channels is so uncertain. Nevertheless, should you find M. Gillet uninterested in your appeals, I shall put myself at your service in attempting to secure the ear of M. Deflandre. In spite of any quarrel I may have once had for the institution he represented, the duc d'Orléans was a benevolent figure, and furthermore I would find it difficult to place much of the blame for the failures of the Orléaniste regime at his feet. If if you find yourself able to travel to pay your last respects, I would humbly request that you convey mine also, unable as I am to leave England.
I look forward to a freer discussion of these affairs in person when we meet soon at Houghton. Until then, please accept my warmest regards.
I remain,
Merivée
Merivée
The Prince de Polignac sat at the escritoire in the library at Houghton Hall. Although the Prince typically attended to correspondence from his study, today he had opted to review his letters from la bibliothèque. Glancing at the envelopes which had been neatly arranged on his desk, the Prince noted that one was addressed to a Duc de Polignac and another simply to Monsieur Polignac. The Prince remarked : c’est un nouveau monde, dans lequel il n’y a pas de place, ni pour les vieilles coutumes, ni pour les vieilles familles. Toutefois, le nouveau monde est devant nous, c’est à nous de l’inventer. (trans. It is a new world, wherein there is neither place for ancient customs nor old families. Nevertheless, the new world is before us, and it is up to us to fashion it.)
To the Duc de Polignac (@m.equitum)
Monsieur le Duc de Polignac,
Mon cher ami, distance has always obstructed the happy continuation of our friendship. I reminisce about the old country, before its perversions, and our acquaintance when the drapeau blanc flew above the Tuileries. Perhaps such reflections are injurious to my health, but I cannot avoid these introspections; they are quite necessary. When revolution first came, I entertained the considerations of the defeated class. Général de Montholon, the Duc de Cars, the Duc de Fitz-James, and my father submerged themselves in the cause of the branche ainée. Monsieur le Duc de la Cars showed persistence and loyalty to Henri V, and like the Victomte de Chateaubriand, spent all his wealth in the cause. I remember le Duc, a silent but rash man of action, who despised the salons and repudiated any idea of parliamentary participation. I watched him pass the last years of his life in expensive and fruitless conspiracy. There was no dearth of pessimism. I remember the reception of the Duc de Luxembourg-Montmorency. Discovering that our noble class was becoming anomalous, Monsieur le Duc congratulated himself on being the last of his line, and rejoice whenever he saw an ancient family extinguished; no longer a place for our brood, the continuation of the lines only besmirched the glory of our ancestors.
The product of such reflections was a severe despondency. I feared my hopelessness might invite baser temptations, and so I resolved to make a quick revolution. I still contend that my friend, the Comte Louis de Kergorlay, made a terrible mistake, on account of his legitimism, when he cut himself from the world in which his talents would have shone brilliantly. His life ended in July 1830, although perhaps it will now be reborn. Although I should not have wished to abdicate my proficiencies, I was even less eager to grovel in the Tuileries to the philippistes enragés. Thus I hastened out of France with the credentials and patronage of estimable gentlemen in the ranks of the ralliés légitimistes. It has been an uninterrupted—barring my wedding—adjournment from France. Never has such an absence proved so encumbersome; no one should endure such a severance from the land of their birth. That is precisely the matter of my renewed introductions, mon ami. For you, no doubt, accounting for the not inconsiderable duration of exile, you have become an Englishman. Perhaps France is but another foreign nation of exotic curiosities. You must hasten to dispel those notions. History is unpredictable, and the premonitions of the Duc de Luxembourg-Montmorency have been proven inadequate. Suddenly, we are fortunate! Inheritors of volatility, it is once again the possible to show great courage and vitality, and reconcile our heritage with great deeds. The legitimate King of France calls for you, mon ami. It is quite necessary that you heed his call.
Veuillez agréer l'expression de ma très haute considération
Charlus
MON HONORABLE AMI - It is when juxtaposed with the glorious accomplishments of illustrious ancestors that one’s achievements are made meagre by comparison. When examining their exploits, one cannot help but consider that our times are distinct from theirs. They faced plague, famine and Mohammedan with a sureness of their place in society. A society in which the humble peasant accepted the authority of the seigneur with unquestioning obedience. In those former times the lowly paysan laboured only for treasures in heaven, and took great comfort that, by his meekness, he would come in due course also to inherit the Earth. To-day, he has cast off of any habit of meekness and demands his inheritance forthwith, claiming as his sacred right those self-same privileges which were the preserve of les noblesse ancienne.
As the torrent of change courses its way through the present age, rather than stand against the flood, perhaps we can channel its energies to irrigate such fields as may need water. What chance have we to stop this deluge? Noah had the benefit of an Ark. God, in His wisdom, has afforded us no such luxury. Mais, while a Divine Hand may not have provided an Ark, it has given us a king: Henri, Dieudonné.
Yet, from the outset, it must be acknowledged that, despite our wishes, we cannot turn back time. Should a Bourbon Restoration ever be effected, Henri will surely have to be convinced to adopt a conciliatory posture with respect to the many entrenched factions which doubtless will endeavour to prevent his installment upon the throne. My grand-father was a close friend of the late Louis XVI, my father was a confidant of Charles X, but years in exile have prevented my making of acquaintance with the hitherto Comte de Chambourd, the strength of whose character I cannot judge, and to whose interest in governing I cannot attest. In former times his pedigree alone would have been sufficient to command the loyalty of the House of Polignac, but such are the times in which we live, and so great are the sacrifices already made by my family in the Legitimiste cause, that there is ample reason to take a moment’s pause before renewing any pledge to the senior Bourbon line.
Mérovingiens, Carolingiens, Capétiens and Bourbons – the Polignacs have survived through their rise and their fall; and in that course the family has heaped its laureled brow with countless honours. Nonetheless, omnia tempus habent. Tempus plantandi et tempus evellendi quod plantatum est. Tempus custodiendi et tempus abiciendi. (trans. All things have their season. A time to sow and a time to reap. A time to keep and a time to cast away.) Indeed, mon ami, a litany of ancient accolades offers maigre consolation in this modern world. It would seem, to borrow that ancient adage, tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis (trans. Times change, and we change with them.) Henri may summon his banners, but the House of Polignac will require more than ancient loyalty to muster to his cause. Je demeure un loyal sujet du Roi. Je prie chaque jour pour sa santé et je confie le reste à Dieu. (trans. I remain a loyal subject of the King. I pray each day for his health and entrust the rest to God.)
MONSIEUR -- I appreciate that M.Gillet (@Somberg) directed my letter to your attention and thank you for your swift and favourable reply to my petition. Permit me, Monsieur, to convey my gratitude to you and to the Provisional Council for finding no impediment to my return to France. With this in mind, I will begin to arrange my affairs in Great Britain as to enable my retour. Veuillez agréer, Monsieur le ministre, mes salutations distinguées.
Last edited:
Chapter 1: Springtime of Nations
(February 1850 - May 1850)
(February 1850 - May 1850)
At the Hôtel de Ville, the June Monarchy ended where it began. Power had passed from the Chamber of Deputies to the streets, and from the streets to the republican deputies. Reminded of the 1830 betrayal, the revolutionaries distances themselves from compromise with the traditional sources of power. Despite a pointed recommendation from François Arago that Paris was not France, and that without popular consultation, the royalists would regard the Republic as an accident without moral influence abroad or at home, Deflandre and the radical republicans proclaimed the Second Republic with an eight-article program for government. The déclaration de la République française received loud acclaim from the revolutionary audience as it formulated a provisional government, enshrined popular liberties (not least freedom of speech), guaranteed the right to work, nationalized the banks, declared universal suffrage, and ended the rule of the fonctionnaires. In this grand accident, where spontaneity ruled, the unexpected elevation of the Republic was realized. A new class of revolutionaries, alongside the traditional bourgeoisie, had taken to the streets; builders, textile workers, furniture and metallurgical laborers featured in large numbers. The failure of the monarchy owed most to the petite bourgeoisie, whose reversion to laziness and complacency struck harder than radical protest. They felt little disposition to risk injury protecting a ministry they disliked. Conversely, republicans in the National Guard took care to appear to rouse hostility towards the government, and others who were not, like much of Les Hommes, dressed in the uniform so as better to embarrass the army and discourage the population. The force of the events was dramatic. Whereas Charles X had endured for three days, and two more days after his retreat, the June Monarchy, more resilient in past encounters, disintegrated with surprising speed.
Le Triomphe, symbolizing republican optimism in 1850.
Revolution played out in the press. Members of the Provisional Government were plucked out of the editorial offices of the three main Paris republican newspapers, Le National (Reynaud Gillet, François Arago, and Pierre Marie de Saint-Georges), Courrier Français (Henri Deflandre), and L'Elan Journal (Francois-Olivier Nadeau, Louis-Alexandre Clement, and Félix Roger Disney). Conveniently for the provisional government, the mechanisms for a republican revival had existed throughout the June Monarchy. Concepts of working class honor and masculinity, especially in Paris, played out in a radical and violent brand of republicanism. Secret societies, masonic lodges, electoral associations, social clubs and informal café gatherings provided an pre-existing political culture which embraced not just republicanism but also hyper-masculine camaraderie, male bonding, secrecy, and ritual. Republicanism became linked, at least for many workers, with socialism. The influences of Saint Simon, Fourier and Cabet pervaded republican ranks and were at least influential for M. Disney and M. Nadeau. Socialist ideas in their proto-ideological forms offered a co-existent vision of society both utopian and moderate. For example, the concept that individuals were entitled to own the fruits of their labour was widely shared by French socialists, even those who desired state ownership of the means of production (banks, railways, etc), and such a tendency manifested itself in an almost universal contempt for the idea of expropriation without compensation. On the other hand, utopianism presented a socialist vision in the purest philosophical forms. Disney’s L'Atlantique, widely read in pre-Marxist circles, found fertile soil at the Law Faculty of the University of Grenoble and was never absent of editorials promulgating various schemes for the better (sometimes absurd) arrangement of society. Phalanstères offered another route for national economic salvation and the public welfare. Above all socialism advocated for an emphatic government, and on this account it had the strongest impact. Unlike its republican predecessor, the Second Republic was bound to be generous-hearted and without terror, and this it owed to the temporary co-existence of the republican factions.
Flag of the Republic is hoisted before the Hôtel de Ville.
The Provisional Government was the result of an instantaneous compromise between the tendencies in the republican party. The first were non-socialist moderate republicans, supported by Le National, and resolved against concessions where the interests of economic orthodoxy were concerned. They were joined by the liberal republicans, such as Deflandre and the editors of the Courrier Français, who disapproved of socialism but were prepared to make economic concessions. The former tendencies stood opposed to the democrats, or left-wing republicans, who were more or less receptive to socialist ideas and were represented in the press by L'Elan Journal and L’Réforme. The provisional government was incontestably a college invested with sovereign power; a Head of State with seven heads. It was also a team of ministers, but power was unevenly distributed; Delfrandre and Gillet enjoying the preponderance of influence that their positions did not necessarily invest. In composition the Provisional Government reflected republican diversity; Delfandre (Foreign Affairs) was moderate but not opposed to interventions; Gillet (Finance), Saint-Georges (Education), and Argo (Public Works) were firm “National men;” Disney (Navy) was socialist but competent and capable of compromise; Clement (Interior) was radical but not a socialist; and Nadeau (War) was a socialist but intransigent and destructive. Left-wing republicans and socialists, many of whom were associated with La Réforme and L'Elan Journal, were therefore in a minority, but they controlled some positions of power and influence. The government met in the Hôtel de Ville, often to the audience of demonstrations outside, and conducted business with passion and vigor over a terrifying charge of duties. In principle, resolutions were brought to the country by a majority vote of the council, although this was never codified, and this neglect would later cause confusion and duress.
The Provincial Government
Henri Delfandre (right) and Reynaud Gillet (left).
Francois-Olivier Nadeau (right), Félix Roger Disney (center), Louis-Alexandre Clement (right).
Pierre Marie de Saint-Georges (left) and François Arago (right).
The February Revolution took members of the Parisian elite by surprise. Only as the revolution began was the social life of Paris high society disrupted. A ball arranged at the Austrian embassy for the evening of 14 February was cancelled at 2 PM that afternoon, the food being distributed to the poor of the arrondissement. Before the eve of the Revolution, the political crisis had penetrated the ballroom. It was reported that, at the Austrian embassy ball, Legitimists literally turned their backs on those who had rallied to Louis-Philippe, while at the British embassy ball the government deputies attended but not the opposition. At the ball given by the duchesse d'Estissac, resistance and agitation were the sole topics of conversation; guests danced until 6 AM, refused to wear their jewelry, and worried they would be unable to get home if demonstrators occupied the bridges over the Seine. Members of the Paris elite were terrified, thought desperately trying to pretend otherwise. The sacking of the Orléans apartments in the Palais Royal and the burning of the royal château at Neuilly convinced the elite that class war was imminent, and at the Hôtel de Lassy, Orléanist notables scurried inside and out to avoid the nearby mob. The day after the revolution, the Paris bourgeoisie trembled for their heads, and once they were certain of their heads, trembled for their money. Public displays of wealth disappeared, and somber dress replaced opulence. Upper-class entertaining dramatically cased; messages such as 'Armes données' or 'Armes rendues' were plastered across the doors of private homes to indicate that privately-owned weapons had been donated to the insurgents. Wealthy notables made well-publicised donations to the collections and subscriptions for the victims of the revolution, and bourgeois and upper-class men of age rushed to join the National Guard. Bankers and the nobility, with the most to fear from the déclaration de la République française, snuck out of Paris. Alfred de Vigny recorded: “The principal streets, the boulevards and the avenues, were covered with carriages driven at full gallop, their lanterns swinging in all directions. I saw them full of women, children, mattresses, trunks, everywhere an improvised house clearance… To pass the barrier [the customs barrier surrounding Paris] was the hope of each family and the objective bought with the weight of gold.” Madame de Valin and Madame de St Priest were so frightened that they dressed as peasants, got a barrowful of eggs and left Paris, shouting the Marseillaise out of tune. Foreign citizens hastened to flee the city before the anticipated terror; Russians, English, Austrians, and Germans hurried to the roadways for a quick exit. For the first time since 1814, if not earlier, the political class was excluded from power. Several hundred deputies' mandates had vanished into thin air. Gone were the receptions and salons at the Tuileries; the revolution had interrupted the social calendar and brought an end to the balls that would have been celebrated for Mardi Gras in early March. The sources of power and government had shifted eastward from the Palais Bourbon and the Tuileries to the Hôtel de Ville, far from the fashionable quarters of Paris in the West. Salon life ceased in the Faubourgs St-Germain and St-Honoré.
Confidence returned once the the Provisional Council declared the general amnesty and backtracked from the nationalization of the banks. Paris did not experience significant looting or acts of violence after 16 February. As prisoners and provisionals rushed to the city, the chassé-croisé of citizens hurried to their posts of public service, or even to their hoped-for careers. Men addressed each other as ‘citizen;’ official letters brought to a close with the expression ‘Fraternal greetings.’ At the mercy of the working-classes there was complete calm; a British woman wrote "I cannot tell you how civil the mob is; I do not think it prudent to take a servant, and the groups give me the inside of the pavement, saying 'Vive la Republique madame!" Disney's reorganization of the Paris National Guard abolished the hated Municipal Guards and elevated Colonel Courtais to lead the Guard. He formed mobile National Guard units that cleared space in the barricades and allowed traffic to resume. The shops and factories reopened, and workmen began to return to their places of employment. The Austrian ambassador declared "this is the sweetest, most amiable republic that one has ever seen." Conservative Paris newspapers were also astonished; the legitimist L'Union declared 'The admirable good sense of the workers of Paris has preserved France from anarchy." A celebratory atmosphere predominated, replete with peaceful parades, flag ceremonies, familial activities, and Roman Catholic festivity.
Celebrations after the February Revolution.
In the provinces the situation was no different. Republicans and workers gathered to demonstrate their delight, and in thirty-five departments they formed comite revolutionnaires that took assumed governmental duties from the Orleanist prefect. In most departments, where republicans were insufficiently strong to stage a bloodless revolution, the Orleanist prefect, expecting his dismissal, assumed the functions in the name of the Provisional Government. In towns and cities, administrative officials were replaced by commissions municipales, which typically reconstituted the local National Guard, and sometimes took more radical steps, such as the provision of welfare to the indigent. On February 18, 1850, the Provisional Council decreed the replacement of the departmental prefects with commissaires (Commissioners), the new title evoking the terminology of the First Republic. Louis-Alexandre Clement, as Minister of Interior, made most of the appointments, although there was no ready-made list of civil servants ready to be sent out to the departments. Everywhere there was a considerable delay between the revolution and the administrative replacements; the peasantry took care to settle old scores and enjoy the effective anarchy, although this ended upon the consolidation of delivered authorities. Altogether, Clement selected men of the left, although not necessarily left-wing republicans. From his first 110 appointments despatched to eighty-five departments, the affiliations of thirty are unknown, fourteen belonged to the gauche dynastique, twenty-two to the liberal republicans like Delfandre, twenty-two to the moderate republicans of Le National, and twenty-two to the left-wing republicans of L'Elan Journal. In France's second city, Lyons, the radical crowd created a large Central Committee of ninety-four members which hailed Nadeau and flew the red flag over the Hôtel de Ville, encouraging workers to join the National Guard, commissioning radicals out to the suburbs to organize revolutionary councils, and issuing bread vouchers to the indigent. Similarly unopposed was a wave of machine-breaking directed principally at church and charity workshops, which allegedly threatened the livelihoods of workers at the Croix-Rousse district. In rural areas the change of regime meant that for several weeks the state failed to operate. Advantage was taken from this situation to attack and pillage chateaux and appropriate communal land. Peasants asserted grazing rights and agitated for higher waves for agricultural laborers. They stopped paying taxes and tried to destroy tax records; they refused to pay rents and smuggled goods wherever they could find them; they broke forest codes, and violently molested tax collectors and unpopular priests.
Funerailles des Victimes des Février
The formation of the Government and the allocation of ministerial posts inaugurated the long march towards effective administration. As early as February 16 judicial appointments were posted in Le Moniteur, listing those appointed the Conseil d'Etat, the post of procurer général, the judicial bench, and the magistrate. Approximately 798 juges de paix were replaced between 29 February and 30 April. Most officials of the June Monarchy showed embarrassment in their eagerness to profess their support for the new Republic. Instances of passive resistance were very rare, and the Republic forced no mandated decrees of allegiance. Legitimists welcomed the new Republic, and finding no party in any capacity to assume a restorative program, brushed off their internal exile to assume the transitionary mantle of the Second Republic. Other elements of French society accepted the new order. Most of the Roman Catholic clergy delighted in the downfall of the anticlerical June Monarchy; they remembered the sacking of the Archbishop of Paris palace and the Church of St-Germain-l'Auxerrois. Ever since the events of the early 1830s the Church hierarchy had kept its distance from power; after all, the revised Charter relegated Catholicism to its Napoleonic position as the religion of the majority. Furthermore, by 1850 most of the old hierarchy associated with the pre-1789 nobility had died off. Another boost for reconciliation was the political prominence of Deflandre, who convinced Mgr. Affre (the new Archbishop of Paris) to allow field hospitals on church policy. On 21 February the Archbishop formally ordered the flag of the Republic to be flown from state buildings. Affre carefully walked the line between the appeasement of his legitimist constituents and alleviating the apprehensions of counter-revolution. A new term therefore entered into the political lexicon for those who accepted the Republic only after February 1850, the républicans du lendemain (republicans of the day after), in contrast with lifelong republicans, who were called républicains de la veille (republicans of the day before). Some notables followed the Orléanist habit of accepting every regime as legitimate products of the historical force des choses. Distinguished personages, from Esme Merivée to Gustave de Beaumont, perfected this propensity for rallying. There was virtually no resistance anywhere in France to the overthrow of the Kingdom. General Castellane briefly considered resisting the February Revolution from Normandy, but resigned, and the Duc d'Aumale and the Duc de Joinville did the same. While some officers harboured a sincere sense of loyalty towards the Orléanist regime, particularly in Algeria, where Orléanist sentiment was strong, the junior officers followed the lead of their seniors, and acquiesced. When the Algerian armies were later given the quite controversial ability to elect their own officers, the army showed its sentiment by confirming most of the appointments made during the June Monarchy.
The républicans du lendemain and the républicains de la veille.
The foremost task of the Provisional Government was preparatory work for the constituent elections. As an immediate contrast to the immobility of the June Monarchy, the Provisional Government rushed through decrees that declared universal suffrage and earmarked the election date for September 1850. The latter decree represented an obvious concession to the left as the dem-soc republicans wished for this electoral delay. It was argued in the Provisional Government that the political education of the people would take time, and that only the conservatives, the 'parti royaliste,' were prepared for the elections. Delfandre and Clement argued for the prolongment, and because the moderate liberals sided with the Left, the delay was passed. In a certain sense the democrats were not mistaken—the lower classes needed time to acquaint themselves with the Republic—but the decision for September was far too extreme. The more progressive gentlemen of Le National and the radical gentlemen of the Courrier Francais, Deflandre in the Government and Dubois in the press, severely overshot the electoral timetable, and exposed the Provisional Government to justifiable accusations of oligarchie. An eight-month provisional government seemed to undermine the very term, and the ministerial members became suddenly exposed to a storm of recriminations from conservative forces. The républicans du lendemain feared a dictatorship as administrative functions and personality disputes within the government accumulated over time. In the press, opposition sentiment latched onto the heptarchy. M. de Girardin, the converted proto-socialist manager of La Presse, allowed conservative editorialists to harangue the provisional government for the despotic direction, and the Journal des débats gloated for the first since since the Revolution. The Comte de la Marche, in particular, proved an acerbic critic of the government, and penned several open articles that mortified the ministers into response. The government entertained no aspiration for autocracy, and sincerely wished for the dissemination of republicanism. But the renewed propaganda of the conservative bourgeoisie and Orléanist notables struck an almost indefensible exposure. Gillet and the “National men” reveled in redemption for their opposition to the excessive prolongment, and after the backlash to the election date, the momentum remained with the liberal moderates.
Suffrage universel, 1850.
The fall of the Monarchy occurred during a time of economic crisis, and the Provisional Government endured sustained pressure to provide work. Fearing disorders,‘socialism,’ or another bank nationalization, contractors hesitated to reopen their building sites and workshops. The rich were becoming tighter with their capital. Governmental measures for the provision of employment materialized on 27 February when the government decreed national workshops and communal nationalization. The decrees complemented the pro-Dubois program of the March Days, and expanded upon those practical principles. National Workshops in the form approved by the Provisional Government built upon the concept of ‘charity workshops,’ offering state-sponsored labour for the unemployed. Much to the horror of the socialists, the government paid labour for subsistence-level food or equivalent compensation payment, which was worsened by the record-low food prices. The Constitutionnel and the Journal des débats offered conditional support for what was effectively a traditional remedy for work shortage. Complementing the national workshops with the poorly written Decree on the Communes, the Provisional Government consolidated communal land into cooperatives, effectively excluding the non-domiciled peasantry from access to the communal lands. The decree was not an unmitigated disaster—communal lands proximate to small towns served as necessary outlets for ‘workhouse’ labour when communities did not have the requisite infrastructure for public programs. Partisans of socialism, desiring ‘social workshops’ and production cooperatives, naturally felt disappointed by this traditional remedy. They gathered at the Hôtel de Ville and demonstrated for a social ministry. Vulnerable to the impositions of the mob, the ministry offered a Ministry of Public Welfare under Disney. Immediate demands included the limitation of working hours, and a commission to propose more extensive reforms. The new ministry and commission met in the Luxembourg Palace (the former Chamber of Peers), while the ushers of the former Chamber of Peers, still wearing their traditional uniforms (plus a tricolore armband), now looked after a ministry of scurrying workers and economists. On 28 March the labour commission made its first proposals to the Ministry of Public Works; maximum legal working should should be capped at 10 hours in Paris and 11 hours in the provinces, and that the practice of marchandage should be abolished. The Luxembourg commission also recommended fines for those found guilty of having exploited workers through marchandage, and the forbiddance of unfair competition from workers in prisons, charitable institutions and religious communities. In addition to the National Workshops, unemployment measures included the creation of the Properties Commission, which allocated specials funds for the maintenance and conservation of former royal palaces and important-owned buildings.
Fear of the revolution and fear of the election.
The provisional government also confronted stake bankruptcy, worsened by the expenses of the workhouse, the self-imposed suspension of internal tolls, and the losses from provincial disorders. On account of the economic catastrophe, the provincial government through Gillet (Finance) imposed the unpopular sixty-percent rise on direct taxes (property taxes), which was officially known as the sixty-centime tax. The next day the Bourse reacted quite positively to this decision, but in the provinces, resentment stirred among the smallholding peasants for this crushing new imposition. As the Provisional Government's oligarchic power continued, social disintegration became a self-fulfilling prophecy on March 18 when there was a run on the Banque de France. Three separate banks, Gouin, Baildon, and Ganneron suspended payments; the Bourse crashed again, particularly in reaction to the recommendations of the Luxembourg Commission. Rumors sprang up that aristocratic households, affected by the calamity, were melting their silver. Many more families hoarded money rather than trust them to the bank. It was said that the upper and middle classes did not fear the Second Republic for its potential violence, but for its potential poverty. The Débats declared "Employment will return when confidence is established; it will not reappear before." The real fear was further political radicalization as the economic situation became more severe, and that the communism of the workers would make all commerce impossible. Communism, socialism, and the economic programs of the government all became associated with Proudhon's line that "all property was theft" despite the fact that he protested against the label. Michael Chevalier's famous triumvirate of letters, repudiating the socialism of Blanc, Nadeau, and Disney, appeared on 4 April in the Journal des Débats when he bet that they would not be able to find three experienced workers in the whole of Paris who could agree that the organization of labour work work for longer than three months. He criticized the preoccupation with the ateliers sociaux as a fundamentally anti-competitive, and thus a reactionary economic maneuver; competitiveness, he claimed, was the "force and friend of progress." The Provisional Government made concessions to the economic orthodoxy, and retrogressively approved Descombes’ loan of 350 million francs.
Ateliers nationaux au Champ-de-Mars (Bouton).
In Paris, the September Laws had been a rallying cry of revolt. They restricted print, associations, and public criers. As the whole system of constraint vanished after February, political life in France appeared with startling speed. Anyone could open a club or launch a newspaper without formalities. In the first three months of the Provisional Government almost 200 clubs were formed in Paris, with an estimated membership of 70,000. Republican leaders, once forced to walk the tightrope of the law, presided over popular meetings bustling with activity. Conservatives feared that the Club de la Révolution, for example, was a simple cover-up of Les Hommes and the secret societies that marked the Provisional Government's loss of control. This conservative apprehensions was not unfounded; some clubs were closely linked with the revolutionary press, the National Guard, and Les Hommes; in turn clubs spread republican propaganda beyond Paris. With fear came equal ridicule. Nassau Senior visited a club and declared "the whole thing was eminently dull," and Edmond Got noted "[they] are quite simply bad little schools for politics and parliament, most often either useless or ridiculous." Their opposition was in the west of Paris, where the elites of the old monarchy were eager for the election. A new newspaper that appeared on 1 March, the Assemblée nationale, indicated their impatience, because by early May it was known as the "royalist newspaper" and featured both legitimists and Orléanists. With the ascendancy of the National men, and the growing distaste among the National Guard for the communist workers, the revolutionary moment came in conflict with the orthodoxy.
Political clubs proliferated throughout Paris in 1850.
Government proved a political marketplace where entropy reigned supreme. Former coalitions and alliances of expediency deteriorated in the dictatorial heptarchy. Nadeau’s alienation was the most consequential political event between February and May. The disillusionment had, in fact, begun before the Revolution, when fresh republican faces overshadowed Nadeau’s democratic legacy after the 1846 elections. His marginalization continued in 1848 and 1850, and his ideas became hardened. His inflexibility militated against governmental compromise, and ispo facto, durable gains for his party. Nadeau endured the first relegation, and could not suffer another. When the déclaration de la République française pronounced the preliminary steps for financial nationalization, Nadeau appeared redeemed in revolution. But his recovery proved but a momentary reprieve. He reviewed his initial appointment as Minister of Public Works, and not the Head of Government, as an insult that deprived him of his due. His threat to withdraw support from the Provisional Government earned him the War Ministry, but the attitude of his associate republicans was now clear to him. Furthermore, when the Provisional Government reversed his policy of bank nationalization, Nadeau flashed to Les Hommes’ grave betrayal in 1830, which allowed him a historical perspective of the pendulum of revolution and reaction. This bitterness intensified as it became clear that the voting bloc in the Provisional Government favored the moderates, and sidelined the radical republicans. By late March, Nadeau saw the Revolution as tending towards the policies of the June Monarchy, and outright refused to attend ministerial meetings. Three weeks later, on April 21, Nadeau showed his forthright displeasure with the Provisional Government by undermining the theoretical premise of its authority. He declared an incredulous thirty-five percent pay rise for the army, and dared the Provisional Government to defy him. Concerned primarily with budgetary economies, Gillet refused his consent for payment. The political polarization occurred when the government was most vulnerable. Conservatives were in open protest against the exclusion clause of the February Decrees which prevented their most distinguished personages—typically office-holders of the June Monarchy—from contesting office. Furthermore, the government’s bumbling attempt to prosecute Marshal Moncey first for abrogating the Charter of 1830, then for murder, and then again for abrogation, humiliated the incumbents. Nadeau’s defiance opened a potentially dangerous wound, and many newspapers began to speculate about the possibility of an internal coup d'état as the functions of government ground to a halt over the feud.
REVOLUTIONS IN EUROPE
When France sneezes, all of Europe catches a cold. Metternich said these words in 1830. Twenty-years later, France sneezed, and Europe fell ill. Word of the February days in Paris spread like a pulse and electrified Europe. The black, red, and gold of German unity, once shelved away and banned, fluttered openly, and even the moderate burghers of Bonn donned the colours. Massive demonstrations fluttered across the princely states. King William of Württemberg, Grand Duke Leopold of Baden, Grand Duke Louis of Hesse-Darmstadt and Duke Adolphe of Nassau folded to massive demonstrations that demanded freedom of the press, trial by jury, popular militias (with elected officers), constitutions for every German state, and an all-German legislature. King Ludwig of Bavaria endured revolution and was forced to abdicate to his son Maximilian. King Frederick August III of Saxony, under pressure from the liberal journalist Karl Biedermann, summoned the estates and dismissed his conservative minister, Falkenstein. In Heidelberg on 5 March fifty delegates from the newly liberalised state dismissed the Diet of the German Confederation and called for a ‘pre-parliament’ in Frankfurt. States in the Prussian Rhineland sent delegates as well, although the Prussian army was able to disperse radical socialist demonstrations in Cologne.
In Vienna, Count Josef von Sedlnitzky, the Chief of Police, assured Metternich that there was no chance of exposure in Austria. In strict terms he was right, as the revolutionary storm first struck at Pressburg, where the Hungarian diet had gathered since November. On 3 March Lajos Kossuth demanded independence in a widely disseminated speech that reached Vienna, where the Lower Austrian Estates were due to meet on 13 March. With the anticipation that liberal reforms were imminent, radical students presented a petition that demanded parliamentary government and Austrian participation in the German confederation. Yet Metternich triumphed in the Staatskonferenz and the Emperor offered no concessions. When the estates met on March 13, several thousand invigorated students from the University of Vienna harangued and harassed the estates, protesting against proposed half-measures and demanding a constitution. The situation escalated, and the students stormed into the chamber, forcing an adoption of the liberal programme and a submission to the Emperor. But the imperial court had ordered the soldiers out of the barracks, and they confronted workers trying to participate in the political revolution by closing gates and traffic. Outside the Hofburg, Archduke Albert was attacked when he called the citizens to return home. The attack prompted another confrontation, and this time the soldiers fired. Street-fighting, in which the soldiers dominated the thoroughfares but lost the side-streets, continued until late afternoon, when a ceasefire was declared. The government conceded the programme of the protesters, and that night, Metternich left Austria for The Hague, until he finally arrived in London on 21 April. The ‘Academic Legion’ and the bourgeois militia dominated the city, but only their demands for press freedoms and the creation of a new National Guard were satisfied. The arch-conservative Prince Alfred Windischgratz assumed all civil and military power and attempted to subdue Vienna. Again the military forces were matched, and Windischgratz decided it was wiser to concede to a constitution, rather than risk a mass insurrection. Regions of Central Europe little affected by February burst into revolution upon word of the events in Vienna.
An armed brigade of the Academic Brigade in Vienna.
Archduke Stephen convened the Diet in Pressburg, consolidated several demands for Hungary (including a separate government, wider representation of the people and full union with Transylvania) and rose to Vienna to present these demands to the Emperor. Ferdinand accepted with little resistance. The acquiescence, however, inspired further demands, and Stephen demanded that all legislation passed by the Hungarian Diet be automatically ratified. The Staatskonferenz refused and so Stephen rushed to the Emperor himself and forced the feeble-minded Emperor to make concessions. The Imperial Rescript that emerged the same day gave Stephen executive powers and provided Hungary with its own government responsible to the diet. Stephen appointed Lajos Batthyány as the first Prime Minister of Hungary on March 17, and the Staatskonferenz folded as concessions everywhere seemed the grim necessity of survival. In Budapest radical elements took charge, and presented an expansive twelve point programme: free speech, civil equality, national parliaments, trial by jury, departure of non-Hungarian forces, annexation of Transylvania, etc. News of Metternich’s dismissal arrived on 14 March, and the city burst into revolutionary fervor. A new municipal government, the Committee of Public Safety, was formed, and a national militia was constituted. Hapsburg rule was in full retreat in Budapest. Concurrently, in Prague, a demonstration of several thousand workers presented political petitions for constitutionalism, civil liberties, the unification of the ancient Czech crownlands, the reduction of the army, and the equalization of languages. A festive atmosphere produced as national guards and academic legions were formed across Bohemia and Moravia. They sent a deputation to Emperor Ferdinand that presented the so-called “Saint Vàclav Petition.” The court, however, sensed reluctance among the revolutionaries, and conceded ver little. On 28 March the members of the Saint Vàclav committee stormed over the refusal as cries for a ‘Republic’ dominated the cautions of the Bohemian nobility. An even stronger petition was formed, including the unification of all Czech lands, and the creation of a separate kingdom, retaining only dynastic links with Vienna. Bohemia’s humiliated governor was forced to affix his seal, and afterwards he resigned. Vienna promised separate Bohemian and Moravian estates, elected on a property-franchise, and the liberation of the Czech language.
The recitation of the National Song at the National Museum.
Prussia could not contain the explosion in Central Europe and Germany. Growing crowds and demonstrations forced the reluctant Emperor to make certain concessions, including the abolition of censorship and the convocation of the Prussian Estates. But the King had not withdrawn the Prussian Army, and invariably, when violence broke out, Berlin descended into revolutionary chaos. In some of the most ferocious fighting in Europe, almost a thousand civilians were killed. By the end of the first day the military remained in control of the main thoroughfares, and Prittwitz and the Crown Prince were optimistic. The King, however, recoiled at the idea of more bloodshed, and when it became clear that the revolution was not over, offered a truce and military withdrawal from the city. When the troops evacuated the Schloss, the revolutionaries stormed towards the streets, and could only be calmed by the King’s appearance. A Bürgerwehr took the responsibility of order, and the King made vague promises that “Prussia would henceforth merge into Germany.” On March 22 the King announced he would grant a new constitution, but three days later the monarch abandoned Berlin for Potsdam, where he was surrounded by hardliners, such as Ludwig Friedrich Leopold von Gerlach and the Prince of Prussia. When one of those hardliners, Karl von Prittwitz, asked what could be done to restore order, a young nobleman named Otto von Bismarck began to play the Prussian infantry march on a nearby piano.
The iconic scene from the Revolution in Berlin.
The Piedmontese constitution, the Statuto, authorized on 4 March, inspired liberals from Lombardy to Venice. It shared power between the King and the bicameral parliament—the former executing significant power over the armed forces, foreign policy, and convocation and the latter exercising financial authority. Lombards took to wearing grey capes in imitation of Charles Albert’s army, and the Milanese Liberal Conte Enrico Martini pressured the Piedmontese king to invade Austrian Italy, which had been under martial law since February 20. After Metternich’s fall, Italian liberals took to the streets, and on 18 March stormed the Milanese council chamber and forced the local authorities to establish a civil guard and lift censorship. Marshal Joseph Radetzky and his devoted thirteen thousand soldiers (mainly Croats and Hungarians) struck back. Barricades and fortifications grew from the narrow streets as artisans and labourers gathered to participate in the rising. For several days the city was contested, and the deafening racket of shouting voices, chiming bells, and gunfire showered the city. Finally, Radetzky withdrew his troops to the city walls, where he intended to besiege the city. Milanese revolutionaries deployed all their ingenuity to break the siege; they practiced novel airmail services, and tried to build tunnels out from the city. Lombardian peasants across the country overturned their Austrian garrisons and Meanwhile, Charles Albert was under pressure from his own Piedmontese radicals, who threatened revolution unless he moved against the Austrians. His primary motive was indisputably to annex Lombardy and Venetia. On March 22 the Milanese broke the siege with a fierce assault and opened the gate, at which time the Lombard peasants and small-town artisans poured into the city. Radetzky bombarded the city during his retreat, and pulled northward to the famous Quadrilateral fortresses (Quadrilatero) at Verona, Peschiera, Mantua, and Legano. The same day Charles Albert declared war on Austria and sent his forces across the River Ticino.
Un épisode des cinq journées de Milan en 1850.
At Venice the population protested around the arrests of Daniele Manin and Nicolo Tommaseo. When news of Metternich’s fall reached Venice, crowds swept into Saint Mark’s Square, demanding the release of the political prisoners. They stormed the governor’s residence, and forcibly released the imprisoned at the nearby prison. When Imperial troops tried to bring down the Italian tricolour over the square, the revolutionaries harassed the troops until the garrison fired and killed nine Venetians. The story, so familiar in Europe, was repeated. The city bubbled into fury, and formed a city militia that controlled the city. When word arrived on 19 March that an imperial constitution was promised, there was momentary acclaim, but few sincerely believed that the Empire would suddenly acquiesce. As the garrison was still strong, and news from Milan was now flooding into Venice, Manin set an insurrectionary date for 22 March, when the new civic guard would capture the arsenal gates and force the garrison to surrender. The coordinated maneuvers succeeded, boosted by the defection of Imperial Italian troops, and republican insurrections seized the city. Count Ferdinand Zichy, the Austrian commander, surrendered the municipality at 6:30 and his troops abandoned the city. The next day Manin was proclaimed president of the new provisional government.
Daniele Manin and Nicolo Tommaseo are liberated from Austrian jail in Venice.
Back in France, radicals expected the provisional government to pursue an energetic foreign policy and erase the defeat of 1815. Republicans in much of France desired the mobilization of revolutionary armies that could liberate Italy and Poland with the gospel of liberty. Marc Caussidière, the new republican prefect of police, declared that the February Revolution was a “sacred promise of emancipation for all the peoples of Europe. Radicals from across the globe inundated the Hôtel de Ville with entreaties for assistance. On 26 March, seven hundred Polish democrats led a march of Parisian radical club members to the Hôtel de Ville demanding arms and weapons from the French Government. They returned home furious when the French government offered nothing but aid to help them back home. Deflandre’s situation was quite precarious, since it was his job to reassure France’s neighbors of her peaceful postures. He made his first act a symbolic one during the Revolution when he refused the red flag and declared: “The red flag has been dragged in blood around the Champ de Mars. The tricolour flag has gone around the world carrying freedom in its folds.” The British ambassador, Lord Normandy, saw Deflandre’s symbolic decision a positive one, and reported back to London that most French people appeared to support the new government and moderate their passions. The government did not abolish the death penalty for political offenses, but it did promulgate Deflandre’s ‘Manifesto to Europe’ issued on 4 March. The soothing words of order and peace elegantly reassured the kingdoms of Europe that France could exist as a partner in the continental order; if revolution and liberty were to come, the French revolution knew that no liberty is durable, save that born upon its own grounds. In the American vision, the Republic hoped to lead by example, not force. Republican firebrands chafed at this interpretation, and a massive demonstration on 17 March in which over a hundred thousand members of the left-wing Parisian clubs marched through Paris. Deflandre, perhaps a little scared, but likely more animated to the ambition, offered governmental support to the legion in contradiction to his manifesto. About fifteen hundred expatriates crossed into Savoy with French armaments, taking Chambery on 3 April, but the Savoie peasantry did not take kindly to the ragged invaders. They swept from the mountains and killed dozens, earning widespread condemnation from the Piedmontese government, and by extension, the Piedmontese-supported revolutionaries in Lombardy. It was too weak a move to succeed, and too strong a move to be concealed.
Deflandre refuses the red flag on February 20.
A pre-parliament of five-hundred and seventy-four members gathered in Frankfurt. Many were invited from extant state assemblies, others summoned individually for their reputations, and a handful elected by popular meetings. The rupture between liberals and radicals occurred instantaneous on 31 March during the first meeting. The liberal moderates pressed for a federation of constitutional monarchies, while the republicans demanded a single unitary and democratic state. Monarchists commanded a significant majority, and they elected a Committee of Fifty to serve as the caretaker government until the actual German parliament convened in May. The radicals considered another attempted revolution in Baden, believing that one victorious stroke would bring the conservative edifice crashing down. The Frankfurt assembly approved pleas for military assistance from the liberal Baden government as the radicals gathered their revolutionary forces. On 20 April the forces of the liberal Grand Duke defeated the radical revolutionaries, and everywhere the divide between moderate and radical became severe. Trouble next arose with the Danes over the duchies of the Schleswig and Holstein. [1] German nationalists demanded both duchies, while liberal nationalists in Copenhagen forced the Danish monarch to replace his conservative ministry. On 24 March the German nobles in the two duchies declared independence, and the Committee of Fifty in Frankfurt rallied the Confederation to war. Twelve days later they appealed for Prussian intervention, and the old conservative forces of Germany, the Confederation and the Prussian army, marched to war, only to find themselves overextended and blockaded by the Danish navy.
Proclamation of the Provisional Government of Schleswig-Holstein.
In Poland, nationalism proved a powerful force for insurrection. March revolutions in both Berlin and Vienna opened Poznania and Galicia to the activities of Polish partisans. After a disappointing rejection from the French Provisional Government, Polish émigrés boarded trains across Europe and stormed back to Greater Poland. Early relations between revolutionary Poles and Germans proved salubrious enough; Polish political prisoners freed on 20 March and most Germans expressed solidarity with the Poles. Eventually the pre-parliament declared the partition of Poland a shameful injustice and recognized the duty of the German people to rectify that problem. Such a program would invariably bring war between Prussia and Austria, and many German revolutionaries relished a bellicose opportunity. Frederick William, however, outright refused any consideration and declared: “By God, never, never, shall I draw the sword against Russia.” It was the determination of all the great powers to avoid a general Napoleonic conflict that thwarted Polish ambitions. Disappointed Poles pivoted to revolutionary stratagems, and initiated peasant and industrial insurrections against their German masters in Silesia. When he Polish revolt spread to Poznania, German military intervention became a necessity. By 9 May the Polish miltias and guerillas in the Grand Duchy of Posen, Austrian Galicia, and Prussian Partition Poland were defeated, and another tragic moment in Polish history ended. In the Frankfurt pre-parliament, cosmopolitanism had collapsed, and while the Committee of Fifty persisted in their calls for Polish freedom, it could only be implemented without clashing with German interests. The dream was very much dead.
Skirmish in Miloslaw between Polish and Prussian forces.
Revolution divided liberals and radicals. Academic Legions, middle-class intellectuals, the urban lower middle classes and suburban workers desired persistent revolutionary activity to progress their agenda. When the Emperor provided his promised constitution on 25 April, the liberals were keen to consolidate their gains. The constitution was fairly conservative, yet popular, and it disappointed Viennese radicals. Academic legionnaires conveyed their discontent by intimidating the Imperial ministers. The radicals forced the resignation of minister-president Count Ficquelmont under threat of violence and reveled in the power of their coercive harassments. They next turned their hatred to the constitution, particularly against the suffrage restrictions, and deployed the National Guard to their advantage. Another collision occurred on 14 May, and once again the revolutionaries triumphed. The Emperor was forced to concede universal male suffrage and a unicameral parliament. But the next morning the city awoke to a proclamation that the imperial family had abandoned Vienna to take court in Innsbruck. Fear and anxiety permeated a city that expected republicanism. A sudden conservative reaction from Vienna changed the situation; the radical Central Committee self-disbanded and made way for a moderate municipal government. The reaction had its first success, although the court remained in Innsbruck while the Emperor complained of “illegitimate expressions of the popular will” that lacked no basis in the legal parliament.
Vienna in May 1850, before the reaction.
Hungary proved quite different. An irresistible alliance of parliament and people rendered attempts by Vienna to claw back concessions powerless. Concessions were codified into the thirty-one “April Laws” that gave Hungary independence within the Empire. The Emperor retained the right to veto laws, but his Hungarian ministry remained in Budapest, where they were responsible to Parliament. About twenty-five percent of Hungarian males were enfranchised, the economic rights of the nobility were abolished, and all citizens were guaranteed civil liberties. Budapest’s radical Committee of Public Safety voluntarily disbanded once the laws were confirmed. As in Austria, the compromise between revolutionary forces was tenous. When the Emperor declared that “all people of the Monarchy are guaranteed the inviolability of their nationality and language,” liberal Hungarian nationalists recoiled. Revolutionary and liberal Hungarians argued that their lands included all the historic crownlands of Saint Stephen, and expected this to be reflected in the assimilation of national minorities. Hungarian politicians sought to establish the monoculturalism of the new kingdom, but the minorities of the Monarchy entertained different ideas as the Innsbruck court delicately played divide and conquer. The Slovaks pressed for autonomous rights and launched large demonstrations for national rights. Romanians, always looking to the occupied lands of the Turk, desired local liberties within the context of the Hungarian state. With almost three million Romanians in Hungarian Transylvania, the Romanian demography resisted attempts to subdue their identity to Maygars. Feverish activity for educational liberties and assemblies aroused the Romanian populace. A national petition, demanding imperial representation and civil rights, was formulated and deliberately sent to Vienna and not the Hungarian government. There was no demand for full Romanian independence, but it looked ominous to Hungarian nationalists. The Maygar governor disbanded Romanian committees. By June 1850 the Romanians looked for unification with the Danubian principalities as an escape route to Hungarian entanglement. Hungary’s position was further damaged by the patriotism of the Croats and Serbs, who contested Hungary’s dominance. The Imperial Government looked to encourage these divisions, and promoted the conservative Baron Josip Jelačić as the anti-Hungarian ban of Dalmatia, Croatia, and Slavonia. Added to this perplexing mix of ethnic contestations were the Serbians, who supported Jelačić and also pursued national liberties. The Imperial Government cautiously steered the Serbians against the Magyars, but was still unable to take drastic means of restoring Hapsburg authority as it was fighting in North Italy.
Parliamentary election campaign in a Hungarian province.
By April, the Austrians had withdrawn to the Quadrilateral in the north, while in the South the Pope, Pius IX, seemed to fulfill his early liberal promise by offering leadership to a new Italy. Widespread public pressure demanded that the Pope commit to the anti-Austrian alliance. Crowds proclaimed holy war and transfixed the Catholic cross into the Italian flag; Roman volunteers in the war against the Austrians thus earned the name crociati (crusaders). Every state in the peninsula, including King Ferdinand of Naples, promised assistance against the Imperial menace. But soon enough there were fissures in the ranks. Charles Albert, in public, proclaimed his sympathy for Italian fraternity. His motivations were far more domestic and dynastic; serious republican pressure might depose him if he failed to produce gains in the conflict. A precarious political truce between monarchists and republicans smoothed over the difficulties. Nonetheless republicans were divided over their strategy—Cattaneo, for example, was prepared to delay a democratic republic if it meant national unity, while Cattaneo essentially owed allegiance to Lombardy, and was prepared to win political liberty over national unity. The monarchists capitalized on the delay, and on 12 May it was declared that a referendum on Lombardian fusion would be conducted, but only if that fusion with Piedmont would be immediate or post-bellum. Despite the frantic attempts of Milanese democrats, voters overwhelmingly sided for an embrace of the Savoyard monarchy. The decision also isolated Daniele Maini’s Venetian republic and complicated the question of annexation. Meanwhile immediate military assistance was needed. As early as 30 March there were reports of an anticipated Austrian counter-attack. As the Piedmontese and Austrian armies raced to the Quadrilateral, Manin was forced to make a desperate plea for assistance; he hoped that a united Italy would (at best) be a loose confederation of states in which Venice could coexist with the monarchies, but this was a highly unlikely outcome. By early summer it was bound to submit to the King and forfeit its republican spirit. The war of independence had also been dealt a sudden blow the Pope’s sudden withdrawal from the conflict. He regretted his decision to send troops against the devoutly Catholic Habsburgs, and repudiated on 29 April any attempt to place the Pontiff at the forefront of an Italian national unit. His decision to part ways with Italian nationalism caused disbelief in Rome. Disbelief gave way to anger, and republican sentiments materialized across the Papal States.
Scenes from the Austro-Italian War of Independence.
Similarly, in Naples, the King withdrew his troops from the war. Democratic political clubs, calling for the abolition of the upper house and an extension of the suffrage, provoked a backlash from constitutional liberals who faced social unrest in their workshops. Far more serious was the jacquerie in the countryside. Peasants occupied land that they claimed was theirs, particularly common land enclosed by the landowners. Radical rural demagogues demanded a forcible expropriation of the land for redistribution. Chasms between liberal and democratic movements gave King Ferdinand an opening. As the liberal government and National Guard prevented social revolution, conservatives at court, in the clergy, and in the army, spread the word that the liberals wanted to deliver Naples into the hated Piedmontese kingdom. With the withdrawal of the Pope, the clericals also argued that the liberals were acting against religion. The King demanded from the new parliament an oath that it would uphold the existing constitution. As he did so the King concentrated twelve thousand troops in Naples and provoked a revolutionary attempt in the streets. The insurrection divided the moderates and the liberals; the King thus flew his troops into the city and reconquered the capital with civilian casualties approaching one thousand. The National Guard was disarmed, and on 17 May, the King dissolved parliament. The fact that the war against Austria was going poorly made the withdrawal much easier. The armies of Charles Albert scored two early victories at Goito and Peschiera, but stalemated by late April. Reinforcements under Laval Nugent von Westmeath maneuvered to reinforce Marshal Radetzky, and by 25 May his 18,000 troops joined with Radetzy’s 51,000 in Verona. Radetsky prepared for a full-scale counter-attack in early June.
Imperial troops at the Battle of Santa Lucia.
The Orléanist court retreated to Madrid, along with several political émigrés, and took refuge with Queen Isabella. At that moment the ultra-conservative Duque de Valencia, Ramón María Narváez, commanded the Spanish court with the Partido Moderado. Narváez’s iron-fisted will resisted the aftershocks that affected Madrid, and his troops were able to suppress an attempted overthrow in Madrid, but the expenses of the exiled court remained dubious and unpopular. This was complicated by the ultra-royalist Carlist rebellion in Catalonia, which placed a considerable strain on the Spanish finance. Only through the machinations of the Baron Descombes was the King delivered his private accounts, and the exiled court able to subsist. But the Spanish elite, predominantly the commercial classes, although in preference of the June Monarchy, depended upon France for many arrangements. Deflandre offered to recognize the government of Narváez if the Orléanist court evacuated Spain for England or Austria. French republicans preferred an exile in England, where the machinations of royalism could not interfere with a key French strategic ally. Narváez hoped that the Second Republic would implode before his decision, but every day the court remained in Madrid the supporters of Espartero gained strength. Narváez was forced to push through several controversial measures in the Cortes, including the suspension of civil rights, extra funds to meet any insurrection, and the temporary dissolution of parliament. In spite of his militarism, Narváez wished to steer a road between Catholic royalism and republican revolutions, and invested his hopes in constitutionalism once the revolutionary period came to an end. If it ever did, the Duc de Nemours often said in society.
[1] A question which I, being the fourth man, have quite forgotten.
[2] Sources:
France and 1848: The End of Monarchy, William Fortescue
The Second French Republic 1848-1852: A Political Reinterpretation, Christopher Guyver
The Republican Experiment, 1848-1852, Maurice Agulhorn
1848: Year of Revolution, Mike Rapport
The Second French Republic 1848-1852: A Political Reinterpretation, Christopher Guyver
The Republican Experiment, 1848-1852, Maurice Agulhorn
1848: Year of Revolution, Mike Rapport
Last edited:
A letter to Her Majesty Isabel II of Spain; @99KingHigh
To Your Most Catholic Majesty,
As your brother-in-law I cannot help but feel pangs of anger towards those that would take up the sword against your reign. Having recently suffered the indignity of an unwarranted rebellion directed towards the legacy of my late father, the very thought that the misguided followers of your cousin are stirring up the minds of your loyal subjects in Catalonia boils my blood.
The help you have provided my brothers and sisters of France--especially my young nephew Philippe of Orleans--has been invaluable and provided us the needed time to sort out our finances, with the help of our friends and supporters in the land of my birth. However, I am conscious of my duty as son of Spain by marriage and I wish to repay your gracious favor by petitioning for a command in your armies. The thought of being considered a layabout weighs heavily on my mind and of behalf of my French family, I wish to begin to repay our debt to your august person who did not abandon us in these trying times, in the best way I know how. Indeed, all my brothers have been trained in the martial arts; I too served my time in Algeria in the last decade, notably at Biskra where I fought the Kabyle tribes of the Atlas Mountains and earned the Legion of Honor.
Therefore, I would ask your blessings to seek a command in your armies from the duque de Valanica, who currently organizes your government.
With the highest respect to your august person,
Antonio de Orleans, duque de Montpensier, infante de España
To Your Most Catholic Majesty,
As your brother-in-law I cannot help but feel pangs of anger towards those that would take up the sword against your reign. Having recently suffered the indignity of an unwarranted rebellion directed towards the legacy of my late father, the very thought that the misguided followers of your cousin are stirring up the minds of your loyal subjects in Catalonia boils my blood.
The help you have provided my brothers and sisters of France--especially my young nephew Philippe of Orleans--has been invaluable and provided us the needed time to sort out our finances, with the help of our friends and supporters in the land of my birth. However, I am conscious of my duty as son of Spain by marriage and I wish to repay your gracious favor by petitioning for a command in your armies. The thought of being considered a layabout weighs heavily on my mind and of behalf of my French family, I wish to begin to repay our debt to your august person who did not abandon us in these trying times, in the best way I know how. Indeed, all my brothers have been trained in the martial arts; I too served my time in Algeria in the last decade, notably at Biskra where I fought the Kabyle tribes of the Atlas Mountains and earned the Legion of Honor.
Therefore, I would ask your blessings to seek a command in your armies from the duque de Valanica, who currently organizes your government.
With the highest respect to your august person,
Antonio de Orleans, duque de Montpensier, infante de España
Last edited:
(( @99KingHigh ))
Letter from Amélie Constance Félicité d’Armentières, Princesse d’Armentières
To Her Serene Highness, Maria Caroline de Monaco, Princesse de Monaco
Your Serene Highness,
Dearest friend,
I hope this letter finds you in good spirits and that your husband’s health is improving. In these tumultuous times, I must say that I miss greatly your presence at the onset of the saison des théâtres, for you always had the greatest insight about the fine minutia of plays, their intricate meanings and their abstract contradictions. Quite frankly, Paris in your absence is a lesser place.
However, with some order being restored to the Capital, Paris remains a city of delight and refinement, which would certainly provide you with some entertainment and a much needed break from your duties. While I understand that your royal husband and your son must be terribly busy with the administration of the Princedom, I would like to extend an invitation to yourself and your lovely daughter to visit Paris. I could have comfortable quarters ready for you in my Hôtel de Lassay, who is far too vast for my use ever since my beloved son, Louis, has departed for his posting in Madrid.
I look forward to being reacquainted with you and I sincerely hope that you shall brighten the social scene of Paris once more with your insight and delicatesse.
Warmest regards,
Letter from Amélie Constance Félicité d’Armentières, Princesse d’Armentières
To Her Serene Highness, Maria Caroline de Monaco, Princesse de Monaco
Your Serene Highness,
Dearest friend,
I hope this letter finds you in good spirits and that your husband’s health is improving. In these tumultuous times, I must say that I miss greatly your presence at the onset of the saison des théâtres, for you always had the greatest insight about the fine minutia of plays, their intricate meanings and their abstract contradictions. Quite frankly, Paris in your absence is a lesser place.
However, with some order being restored to the Capital, Paris remains a city of delight and refinement, which would certainly provide you with some entertainment and a much needed break from your duties. While I understand that your royal husband and your son must be terribly busy with the administration of the Princedom, I would like to extend an invitation to yourself and your lovely daughter to visit Paris. I could have comfortable quarters ready for you in my Hôtel de Lassay, who is far too vast for my use ever since my beloved son, Louis, has departed for his posting in Madrid.
I look forward to being reacquainted with you and I sincerely hope that you shall brighten the social scene of Paris once more with your insight and delicatesse.
Warmest regards,
The loss of precious competence and personell.
The French Army are undergoing a major rrestructuring, namely by the so called "Reformation of the French Military; 1850" which military officers fear have been passed out of ideological concerns and not concerns for the defense of France and her people. This is known to most, for better or worse.Let us examine the order that all soldiers below the rank of Corporals will elect all Non-commisioned officers above their rank. What purpose do such a move serve? The NCO-corps are composed of specialists and veterans that install discipline among the rank and file and pass on crucial knowledge both to privates and the officers. The NCOs are meant to lead the troops into combat and keep the troops alive to carry out the orders and will of their superior officers.
Now the NCO corps will turn into a popular contest, void of military considerations and full of political ideals. The discipline and leadership the NCOs are meant to inspire among the ranks are reduced or rendered obsolete. Sweat saves blood it is said. This is short for that harsh orders from NCOs such as rapid marches, digging positions and the like save lives . Still it is not popular measures, but it save lives and in turn France.
Parts of the current reform highlight a lack of understanding of military matters among the current Ministry of War. The current Minister is a man of no other quality than writing articles and taking part in the revolution. There is no military qualifications, and that is reflected in the Ministry of War's meddling in military affairs painting it with ideological colors and putting the lives French of patriotic soldiers on the line and in turn national security with their breaking of the backbone of the Army - the NCO corps.
One can but fear what the next order is. Will instructors at the academy's be composed purely of instructors elected by the students, and the officers elected by popular vote? Or will we have appointed instructors and officers on no other merit that having "proper" ideology? The once proud NCO corps are at the mercy of recruits. The battle hardened veterans in Algeria can no longer depend trust their lives in experienced officers and well tried methods, but the whims of ideology. The military is no place for political experiments. The Army and its officer corps was composed of men of proper political connections during the ancien regime. This was undone when an Army based on merit was introduced, and it prospered. Now we risk going back to an Army composed of officers and NCOs of proper political values and not merit.
The third paragraph of the reform eliminate elite units. To what ends? In the name of equality? The current ministry mistake equality in civillian life for quality in the military. Alas it is not so simple. Elite units are required in order for them to function as fire brigades and shock units in critical moments. They are needed for motivation and as a means of inspiration among regular troops. The mere presence of an elite unit can lift the morale of a battered company. It ensure battle ready and proven soldiers in critical moments. This "equality" reduce the quality of the French Army.
The first paragraph is a welcome reform. As opposed to the two latter paragraphs, thisis sound and have been proposed by military officers and theoretician beforehand. The Ministry listened to the military on that matter, and we applause them. Even if they muddle and confuse the language, by making it look as a socialist and not military proposal.
To adress the elephant in the room the author was promoted and tasked with constructing a fort on a non-existant area. This is either a further proof of the Ministry's general lack of understanding in military affairs or one of a personal grudge. The author hope it's not the latter, still if it is the former it is worrying. The Ministry that is tasked with war can't even issue proper orders, send officers to places that don't exist and breach proper etiquette.
We can only hope the Ministry of War will be composed of men with actual knowledge o the field and won't use their position for pranks and political experiments putting the lives of French soldiers and national security.
Signed, Colonel Joachim Lécuyer.
((Copy also sent to the military journal of @Otto of england on his own discretion)).
Last edited:
Written and first performed in 1936, Master of the House was a satirical and musical look at the short-lived Second French Republic. Controversial with Republican viewers for viciously lampooning the Republican mores of the late 19th century, it starred 'Reynaud Gillet' as a lovable ne'er-do-well innkeeper and crook:
The loss of precious competence and personell.
The French Army are undergoing a major rrestructuring, namely by the so called "Reformation of the French Military; 1850" which military officers fear have been passed out of ideological concerns and not concerns for the defense of France and her people. This is known to most, for better or worse.
Let us examine the order that all soldiers below the rank of Corporals will elect all Non-commisioned officers above their rank. What purpose do such a move serve? The NCO-corps are composed of specialists and veterans that install discipline among the rank and file and pass on crucial knowledge both to privates and the officers. The NCOs are meant to lead the troops into combat and keep the troops alive to carry out the orders and will of their superior officers.
Now the NCO corps will turn into a popular contest, void of military considerations and full of political ideals. The discipline and leadership the NCOs are meant to inspire among the ranks are reduced or rendered obsolete. Sweat saves blood it is said. This is short for that harsh orders from NCOs such as rapid marches, digging positions and the like save lives . Still it is not popular measures, but it save lives and in turn France.
Parts of the current reform highlight a lack of understanding of military matters among the current Ministry of War. The current Minister is a man of no other quality than writing articles and taking part in the revolution. There is no military qualifications, and that is reflected in the Ministry of War's meddling in military affairs painting it with ideological colors and putting the lives French of patriotic soldiers on the line and in turn national security with their breaking of the backbone of the Army - the NCO corps.
One can but fear what the next order is. Will instructors at the academy's be composed purely of instructors elected by the students, and the officers elected by popular vote? Or will we have appointed instructors and officers on no other merit that having "proper" ideology? The once proud NCO corps are at the mercy of recruits. The battle hardened veterans in Algeria can no longer depend trust their lives in experienced officers and well tried methods, but the whims of ideology. The military is no place for political experiments. The Army and its officer corps was composed of men of proper political connections during the ancien regime. This was undone when an Army based on merit was introduced, and it prospered. Now we risk going back to an Army composed of officers and NCOs of proper political values and not merit.
The third paragraph of the reform eliminate elite units. To what ends? In the name of equality? The current ministry mistake equality in civillian life for quality in the military. Alas it is not so simple. Elite units are required in order for them to function as fire brigades and shock units in critical moments. They are needed for motivation and as a means of inspiration among regular troops. The mere presence of an elite unit can lift the morale of a battered company. It ensure battle ready and proven soldiers in critical moments. This "equality" reduce the quality of the French Army.
The first paragraph is a welcome reform. As opposed to the two latter paragraphs, thisis sound and have been proposed by military officers and theoretician beforehand. The Ministry listened to the military on that matter, and we applause them. Even if they muddle and confuse the language, by making it look as a socialist and not military proposal.
To adress the elephant in the room the author was promoted and tasked with constructing a fort on a non-existant area. This is either a further proof of the Ministry's general lack of understanding in military affairs or one of a personal grudge. The author hope it's not the latter, still if it is the former it is worrying. The Ministry that is tasked with war can't even issue proper orders, send officers to places that don't exist and breach proper etiquette.
We can only hope the Ministry of War will be composed of men with actual knowledge o the field and won't use their position for pranks and political experiments putting the lives of French soldiers and national security.
Signed, Colonel Joachim Lécuyer.
((Copy also sent to the military journal of @Otto of england on his own discretion)).
((Approved to run in Le Triomphant))
Comte,
Your presence in France will be welcomed. Yet I must decline to your invitation for political office. Rumors has it half the "government" want me dead. I do not know why to be frank. I returned for a brief period to Paris to organize a few things and to resign from my position in the école de militaire. I have been given an assignment indeed, but such an island do not exist. Fearful for a plot I returned to Catalonia. The revolutions seems to follow me, however, and I might retreat from my estate here to Madrid.
At least I get to finish my book here with plenty of Spanish wines and delights.
For your political career I am willing to hear you out. If we're in agreement over central points I will give you financial support and try to direct the few loyal deputies from old to your cause. Perhaps one day I can return and stand by your side and discuss more pleasant topics.
Your friend,
Joachim.
La Presse
The Plight of the Soldier
By Philippe Henri de Bourbon
The Plight of the Soldier
By Philippe Henri de Bourbon
Now, it would be a lie if I claimed that I ever personally felt the plight, issue or the great honour, which comes with serving in the French army. I can only claim the knowledge which I have learned through friends, and in meetings with officers and soldiers alike, what trouble they may face on the field of battle. Though despite being deprived of my own chance to serve in the French army, as it was decided I was meant for other pastures by the guardians of my youth, then my family has always had a strong connect with the army. A connection which has gone through all the Condé Princes from the very first, who took up the title, to me, who now seeks to defend the soldiers who this Provincial Government mocks by their actions.
Now credit where credit is due, Minister Nadeau was right, a rare moment of clarity in this government as the current state of economy must attest, not to even speak of Foreign Affairs. The pay which the soldiers of France receive, is not worthy of their station and the position which they occupy and present, both at home and abroad. The pay which we grant our soldiers, have often left them without necessary means and that is not even to begin with discussing crippled veterans, who often are the ones which become beggars, a position which they have been forced into by the lack of care by our state.
But not only that, the soldiers are now being used by our provincial government, to battle out their internal squabbles. To be promised a pay raise that is sorely needed and quite frankly deserved. Only for the Provincial Government, to go out and deny the very same pay raise, which they just half a day earlier, pledged to give. A promise given to each man who is willing to give his life for France, a promise made by a government in the name of the people, a promise now already broken.
Now one may argue that the promise in the first place was misplaced, considering the sorry state of the economy, which sadly to the hope of us all, Foofoo, was not competent enough to handle. But all the same, my father, the Prince of Condé, built a hospital and infirmary for the soldiers of France near our home, a few years before his passing, and I have since then been the patron of this hospital. I have met, seen and spoken to those who may not have given their life, but their limbs for this nation. Those very men, who are often forgotten, and are given pensions which are unfit to support them, with pay so scarce that they cannot prepare for retirement. Despite the downturn of the economy, the French people and government has to our soldiers a duty, a duty now mocked, mocked by a government who will not even stand accountable to the elected officials by the French people this September.
For any of government of France to publicly make such a promise, and then for them to negate upon it only hours after its original pledge, is not only unbecoming of France and the people who they claim to represent, but downright detestable. A promise has been made to the French Army, and it is only proper that we seek to have it fulfilled, anything less is unbecoming of us.
Dinner at Houghton
Of course, he would not permit himself much time to wallow in such self-pity and briskly signalled for the first course to be brought into the dining room. The butler duly complied and set a bowl of consommé before Prince. Gently raising a spoonful of the broth to his lips, the Prince was reminded of Sir Lewis, who had remarked, upon his proposal in the House of Commons to abolish soup-kitchens for the able-bodied poor, that such establishments did not even offer vichyssoise or bouillabaisse. The Prince de Polignac recalled that Sir Lewis thought himself witty for such a remark, without any consideration for the poor workmen who suffered hunger as a result. The Prince’s mind then turned to those words he had read in a pamphlet by M. Disney (@Noco19) : L’abolition de la pauvreté a été et doit continuer d’être la fonction principale de la civilisation.
It was at this juncture that a note arrived bearing the insignia of the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company. The Prince did not typically interrupt his meals to attend to commercial matters, excepting those messages which displayed a red stamp on the right-hand corner of the envelope. The note in question bore sure a stamp. Opening the letter, the Prince de Polignac read of the unfolding situation in the Iberian Peninsula. The Prince rose from his dining chair and proceeded to the study, where he set himself to the task of addressing the events in Spain.
SIR -- You will have received by now a note from our agents in Spain detailing the rebellion which has taken root in Catalonia. Confirming that I too am in receipt of such a note, I write to you to-day with a keen intent that the Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company should take decisive steps to safeguard our interests in Iberia.
I request that you, in your capacity as Chairman of the Board, call for an extraordinary convening of that body so as to authorize the following two policies:
- First, the withdrawal of our merchant vessels presently harboured in the Port of Barcelona, redirecting the fleet to haven in Marseilles and elsewhere as necessary; and,
- Second, the trafficking of arms -- the running of guns and other such supplies as may be profitable -- to the forces loyal to H.M. Isabella ad referendum to the British Foreign Secretary.
A letter to authorities exercising government in France;
Messieurs,
On behalf of my family, I must convey our appreciation that our august father, Philippe VII, was buried at the traditional resting place of the Kings of France. It is with this in mind and conscious of the need to unite all Frenchmen that members of my family wish to reenter France as private citizens and to participate in the upcoming elections to create a constitution for the people of France. None of those who with to reenter France do so with any claim towards the headship of state or dynastic preeminence.
My family also seeks to reclaim its private property, the biens de la maison d'Orléans, in full recognition that the proprieties associated with the Monarchy have always been at the disposal of the uses of the State, rather than that of a particular dynasty and that those state properties were kept distinct and not associated with the private property of my family, as well as other private, fungible assets.
We hope that these matters can be settled in a spirit of accord.
Cordialement,
Antonio de Orleans, duque de Montpensier, infante de España
Messieurs,
On behalf of my family, I must convey our appreciation that our august father, Philippe VII, was buried at the traditional resting place of the Kings of France. It is with this in mind and conscious of the need to unite all Frenchmen that members of my family wish to reenter France as private citizens and to participate in the upcoming elections to create a constitution for the people of France. None of those who with to reenter France do so with any claim towards the headship of state or dynastic preeminence.
My family also seeks to reclaim its private property, the biens de la maison d'Orléans, in full recognition that the proprieties associated with the Monarchy have always been at the disposal of the uses of the State, rather than that of a particular dynasty and that those state properties were kept distinct and not associated with the private property of my family, as well as other private, fungible assets.
We hope that these matters can be settled in a spirit of accord.
Cordialement,
Antonio de Orleans, duque de Montpensier, infante de España
A letter to Her Majesty Isabel II of Spain; @99KingHigh
To Your Most Catholic Majesty,
As your brother-in-law I cannot help but feel pangs of anger towards those that would take up the sword against your reign. Having recently suffered the indignity of an unwarranted rebellion directed towards the legacy of my late father, the very thought that the misguided followers of your cousin are stirring up the minds of your loyal subjects in Catalonia boils my blood.
The help you have provided my brothers and sisters of France--especially my young nephew Philippe of Orleans--has been invaluable and provided us the needed time to sort out our finances, with the help of our friends and supporters in the land of my birth. However, I am conscious of my duty as son of Spain by marriage and I wish to repay your gracious favor by petitioning for a command in your armies. The thought of being considered a layabout weighs heavily on my mind and of behalf of my French family, I wish to begin to repay our debt to your august person who did not abandon us in these trying times, in the best way I know how. Indeed, all my brothers have been trained in the martial arts; I too served my time in Algeria in the last decade, notably at Biskra where I fought the Kabyle tribes of the Atlas Mountains and earned the Legion of Honor.
Therefore, I would ask your blessings to seek a command in your armies from the duque de Valanica, who currently organizes your government.
With the highest respect to your august person,
Antonio de Orleans, duque de Montpensier, infante de España
Montpensier,
Your letter is the source of much affection, and please know that the King and myself delight in the sincerity and devotion that you have offered. While we are well versed in your martial competence, we have decided it would not be in the best interests of the crown for you to take the sword. Excelentísimo Señor le Duque de Valencia, for whom I am always of the same opinion, insists that the treacherous insurrections in the Catalonian countryside would not be assuaged by the interventions of a foreign prince, however gallant and loyal he may be to the Crown of Spain. I feel obliged to agree with the noble Duque, as he is an illustrious and wise commandant, and recommend that you and your family take the waters in Sevilla, where certain accommodations could be made for you at the Palacio de San Telmo. Please accept my protestations of the highest esteem and consideration.
Doña Isabel II, por la gracia de Dios Reina de las Españas, de las dos Sicilias, de Jerusalén, &
This Article has been reprinted in numerous bourgeois and banking newspapers across Europe, particularly in England
The Future of France
Like you, I was filled with nervousness and trepidation after the recent events in France. Like you, I saw nationalizations and class warfare in the future of France. I saw this new government repudiating the debts of the previous one and plunging France into decades of economic stagnation. I saw the wholesale destruction of property and the elimination of private investment in France. Yet, this has not happened. There has been collateral damage and some members of this government look enviously upon the deserved wealth of the strivers. Yet, the government has pledged to honour its debts and has taken harsh measures to do so. As I have recently learned, the previous monarchy was rapidly descending into bankruptcy and likely would have repudiated its debts altogether once its spending could no longer be covered up. This government has pledged to honour those debts, and has pledged to keep France a welcome and open place for lending and investment.The Future of France
My friends, I offer you my personal guarantee that you can find a safe and welcome harbour of your money here in France during these troubled times. Much of Europe is currently in flames, but France has emerged with a government that will accept your investment with open arms. I myself will be investing my money in large-scale projects here, as the old royal monopolies are being stripped away to create a more open business environment. Modern technology and methods are production are being brought into France, and the old monarchist restrictions on business are being stripped away. This is a great opportunity, and one you should not turn away simply because of the recent upheavals, for they have brought about positive change for all of us. France needs your money right now, and it is more than happy to pay its fair share.