• 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.
Faction: Tiers Parti

[Presidential Bastard: +2 PP]
[Seine]

- Henri Armentiéres
 
Faction: Refuse the Oath

[I'm just a young boy, nobody loves me: 0PP]
[Prison System]
 
Faction: Tiers Parti

[Salon Archoness, +.75 PP]
[Nord]

- Amélie Constance Félicité d'Armentières
 
((Private))

At the Hotel du Holland, Place Vendome

Late April 1831

Jacques de Rothschild entered the building near his office with a casual air. It was good to be back in Paris at peace. He could walk freely without the risk of the Swiss tirailleurs who picked off the revolutionaries at the barricades almost a year ago. All appeared calm and right with the World.

The concierge challenged the entrant. “How may I be of assistance, Monsieur?” he enquired of the well dressed man who seemed vaguely familiar.

“I have come to visit Mme Hamilton and her son, if it may please them”, Jacques calmly replied.

“I am afraid that you must be misinformed, Monsieur. We have no one of that name residing here.”

“You may give her my card, and assure her that I come alone”, Jacques insisted as he smoothly passed his card to the attendant.

After a short wait, Jacques was led to a drawing room overlooking the square, airy with the early Spring sun giving warmth to the gathering. He approached the middle aged woman, her natural beauty radiating even though dressed in mourning clothes, and the sombre young man whom Jacques presumed was her son. He was shorter than Jacques expected and looked more like his mother more than his father’s side of the family, but the young man exuded that air of confidence reminiscent of his uncle. Yes, there was more than just a passing resemblance.

“Madame, my condolences upon the passing of your son. And to you too Monsieur on the loss of your beloved brother. I have heard most moving stories of your travails in Italy and I can only imagine the grief which you must be experiencing. I regret that we meet again under such melancholy circumstances. You may recall, we met once before, in happier days, many years ago at your mother’s home. When I first arrived in France, what was it, almost 20 years ago now! I shall always remember her beautiful roses.” Turning to the young man, Jacques smiled slightly, “But of course, you would not recall, Monsieur. You were but three years old at the time.”

“It is not without some irony, that you have chosen this residence, Madame", Jacques reflected as his gaze caught sight of the column outside. "If you will permit, I should wish to discuss an opportunity for me to assist you and your son, just as I once assisted your step father….”

Jacques noted the young man’s slight accent which made him wonder whether they should have conversed in German instead. In any event, the mother had lost none of her acuity over the decades and her son impressed Jacques with his political intuitiveness, even if the boy was prone to romantic flights of fancy more than Jacques would have liked. This may be the price to pay for seeking a destiny beyond the mundane, Jacques pondered to himself. The quality of the discussion convinced Jacques that the young man was as promising as his brothers' agents in London and Naples had reported . This was a prospect worth nurturing.

After an hour, the conversation reached its natural denouement.

“I thank you for your audience today, Madame. You are as graceful and considerate as I remember your late mother.” Jacques turned to the grave young man, “And to you, Monsieur, I wish you well in your endeavours. I shall arrange for the stipends to be forwarded to the agreed account in Switzerland to allow you the freedom to develop your talents. However, I strongly suggest that you both return to your abode at Arenenberg at your earliest convenience. The present regime is not inimical to your presence unlike the last one , but we cannot say how long that indulgence will last. The new King is uncertain in his power, and uncertain men easily become jealous of rivals. They sometimes take drastic steps to remove threats, both real and perceived. My advice would be to return to your place of safety, be patient, watch and wait for your destiny. ”

“Good day, Madame, Monsieur. I wish you happier days. For all of us.”

******************************************************************************************************************************************

Faction: Tiers Parti

[Un financier aller et retour 0.25 PP]
[Somme]
 
The Journal of M. Gautier
(Private)


uuwEbbh.png

Alison Rozen de la Couture, 32
Her eyes, like diamonds shine. Glistening, without imperfection, in the moonlight. I hear the leaves rustle, the flowers fall, and the silence seize control of a heavy air - she whispers to me: Monsieur. I place my hand upon her shoulder, kiss her neck, and hold her closely. What am I? Am I wrong? Is it unrighteous of me to hold this creature, only four months separated from her deceased husband - the marquis de la Couture - within my arms? What is righteous except for this moment? She lays upon the divan, and I sketch her lines, her figure. If only art could encapsulate the material - if only the material could encapsulate the spiritual.

"Jean, your mind is wandering..." she says, in a sweet voice.

"My mind is here, Alison, with my body," I say, setting aside my pencil and paper, "and to this endeavor, I shall fully devote myself."

. . .
 
Faction: Politique

[No bonus]
[Gers]
 
Faction: Centre Gauche

[Figurehead: +1.25 PP]
[Nord]
 
Armentiéres gives a speech during a dinner of crowd of newly-enfranchised electors in Paris. An excerpt follows.

"... the principal challenge of the present moment, in which many factions rise and fall, is to create the necessary unity regarding the questions of the day. Blind adherence to the dogmas of yesterday does not serve the people of today, but neither has tomorrow yet dawned. Reform must be steady, but it should also be tempered with caution and a regard for order and stability. Reform must serve specific needs and accomplish achievable goals, rather than being undertaken or neglected for ideology's sake. We must, in short, find a common ground, a third way, to unite the fraying strands of our diverging political discourse and best serve the people whom we represent..."
 
Last edited:
Faction: Légitimistes Ralliés

[Renaissance Legitimist: +1(?) PP]
[Calvados]
 
Joachim had spent time with his fellow students and especially the political active and many of those who participated in the Revolution. It had a unique effect on his young mind. He was afterall only 15 and very acceptable to external influences. These students helped to obtain a somewhat radical predisposition. However he was still in tutelage in the Palais-Royal. These two impulses played on each others's strenghts and helped him to define his own political views. He would with many fellow students come together in Parisian cafés to write articles and notes for a student journal. It wouldn't be far reaching, yet it would affect the minds of the young students. They came together under the pseudonym of M.Civitas. On thing was certain, writing these articles in the cafés were a lot more fun and thrilling than the lessons in aristocratic etiquette.

----

Do the so called "centerparties" share a unique, common ideology? It is difficult to see, but it do make for a much more exciting election this summer.

Where is the juste milieu in French politics?

The election is underway. It will be exciting and a thriller, it will be an even one and no one can really predict who will become the Prime Minister this autumn. Yet there seem to be some sort of acceptance around centrism and the juste milieu. If there was a "juste milieu dictionary" and we examined the definition of centrism/juste milieu it's definition would likely be something in the lines of "centrism are the political and philosophical ideals who seek common ground between various extreme positions. Often one will look toward the traditional right/left dichotomy. Political currents who's aligned close to the center, such as moderate conservative ones and royal-liberals ones, are often refered to as "center-right" and "center-left". Among the currents in the French political climate the Tiers Party are counted as centrist along with the Doctrinaires and Centre Gauche. Moreover the Politique and Gauche Dynastique are considered center-right and center-left respectively".

According to such a definition it is really only the Republicans, Legitimist (both the oath breakers and Rallíes) and Bonapartists who may not join into the juste milieu.

An ideological alternernative.
If we are to ask specific centrist politicians, such as Thiers, they would emphasise the juste milieu is not only something "in the middle of things", but also a valid political and ideological alternative on it's own. "We will attempt to remain in a juste milieu, in an equal distance from the excesses of popular power and the abuses of royal power", our august King defined the juste milieu in his own words. The center is the only viable alternative to abuse by the right or the left. By figures such as Saint-Fulgent or Robespierre.

Today there's many who believe the traditional left-right dichotomy are becoming increasingly less important, due to other conflict lines are progressively becoming more important. I concur, yet I believe many are going too far in writing off the left/right in favor of the juste milieu. The current ministry claimed to represent the juste milieu, but as many among the loose alliance of the Resistance Party and the Legitimists noted, there was really very little that was moderate and centrist in their policies. If we are to look upon the ideologies of certain ministers of the current government, some are now openly claiming they are in the "Third Party" being a centrist alternative and seeking unity with the various factions, by the ways of the juste milieu. Yet the same ministers have been reported to openly side with the National Guard in their radicalism during the riots, and to have stood by the barricades during the revolution. Is that a true third alternative to the Resistance and Movement factions?

The left/right spectrum is still very much valid. An axis that justify the left-right spectrum in French politics is economics. Republicans, the Mouvement and the Resistance al support an economy favorable to modern economics and market friendly reforms. Meanwhile on the right we find the Legitimists who still clinge to the ideas of the old, while arguably the Mouvement are more prone to market friendly reforms under the leadership of figures such as Laffitte and Duvalt.

A sort of metropolitan axis.
A second axis of the left and right may be the metropolitan one. In this sense we examine the point of view on trade and immigration. To start with the Right the Legitimists are the most restrictive in this sense. Advocating strict residency politics and high tarriffs in conjuction with their reactionary philosophy. The Resistance also have many members known for supporting high tarriffs, alltough perhaps not as high, and place themself firmly on the right - alltough the more moderate Doctrinaires may be more prone to free trade in relation to their more leftist economical views. Still their view on residency and immigration are much more left based than their Legitimist adversaries, yet both Republican and the Mouvement find themself on the hard left on this matter (pehaps with the exception of the Centre Gauche who are more moderate in their views) and advocate much freer trade and freedom of movement. In relation to their modern views and especially their influences by market liberalism, "magnificent dynamics" and physiocratists. As with econoimcs the axis on metropolitanism is quite clear from the right to the left: Legitimist, Resistance, Mouvement and Republicans.

Don't say much of reform will.
Yet when it come to conditioning and attitudes toward reforms the lines are somewhat more diffuse. In short we can label it as those who are open to changes, and those who are in favor of traditions and stability. In many ways the Left-Right spectrum is still very valid. (Radical)Republicans want drastic changes in society bound toward mob rule and disorder, meanwhile (radica)Legitimists want to revert all changes and be put firmly under the whip of Charles. However after this the lines become more diffuse. The Resistance have proven itself to be amicable toward reforms. A prime example would be the Politique, with excellent orators and pragmatics such as Decazes and Barante, are willing to compromise with the Doctrinaires and the Mouvement. The Rallíes too accept the current reforms and may be willing to compromise.

Yet again among the Centre Gauche they claim to be liberal and one would believe them to be very much inclined toward reform. However they are much more moderate than their Dynastique brethren, and will likely find themself able to compromise with Doctrinaires to achieve moderate reforms and gains. Meanwhile it is the whole Tiers Parti who bring more confusion into the arena. Among their leading orators and politicians many have proven to be in favor of hardlin reforms and restructuring of society, in such extent they would be more welcome among the ranks of the Gauche Dynastique and Centre Gauche, and perhaps even moderate republicans, than Doctrinaires and Politiques. One can wonder why they choose to adher to a third party, when their inclination clearly lies with the Mouvement. However this may be they are dogmatic followers of the juste milieu, but it remain to be seen if the Tiers truly will remain a centrist alternative or if it will end up supporting the Dynastique Gauches in their much more radical and reformist program.

Then there's other areas on have to take into account. The Church may for many seem as a clear Right-Left divide. "Jesuits" and "Carlists" on the right and anti-clericals among the left. However if we are to look upon the last ministry, it was indeed members of the Resistance who pressed for less Church influence in the educational system, than their Mouvement/Trier Parti counterparts. And the situation is even more muddled with the addition of our Franchophone Belgian brothers. Their liberals are much more religious and focus less on anti-clerical measures that have long been a tradition of the French left.

Even the "urban vs. rural" conflict may at first seem pretty clear in opposition toward eachother. That there is only Legtimists with their agragrian policies and strenght among landowners who are in favor fo the rural, and the Orléanists and Liberals draw their support from the ubran classes. However prior to the glorious revolution the proto-Orléanists, who during the current climate would be among the left wing of the Mouvement Party, did flirt with the rural communities and rejected reforms on the basis that they were too centralising and gave too much power to urban centers. And Republicans are known for similar sentiments, to empower the districts - alltough in a much more radical fashion. Bonapartism provide an even more interesting addition to this. Afterall Bonaparte is still very much popular among the rural communities - and especially poverished peasants (an argument in itself for the juste milieu and against Republicanism to avoid Ceasrism).

Conclusion?
A conclusion is difficult to produce. This was merely an examination and observation. However the juste milieu is a noble pursuit. That the members of the Resistance and Mouvement come together under the banner of Orléans and their philosophy of the juste milieu. In many ways they hve much more common with eachother than their extreme counterparts. And perhaps even Republicans should follow in the footsteps of the Legitimistes Rallíes to come to the center of politics. To forsake their radicalism to gain actual reforms and politics implemented. As it is of now the Republicans and Legitimists remain fringe elements of the political spectrum, excluded from the juste milieu. Republicans could moderate their views, such as Marquis de La Fayette, to have an acutal saying in legislation. One can ask themself if one can get their ideas put into real life if they continue to remain on the fringe and refuse to cooperate, or come to the center and work toward the juste milieu.

Signed,
M.Civitas.
 
INSIDE REPUBLICAN PARIS I: Saint-Simonism and the Associations


The comte de Saint-Simon had died five years before the Revolution, but the June Days were to assist posthumously in the popularity of his ideas. A strange combination of eccentric speculation and practical acuity, Saint-Simon had gathered around himself a group of devoted disciples. He preached to them that the modern industrialists were the new class of aristocrats and that industrialists were the new aristocrats and that intellectuals were the new priests of a religion combining science and philanthropy. His ranks included idealist intellectuals like Pierre Bazard, Prosper Enfantin, and Olinde Rodrigues, who maintained the faith after the death of the comte. They began to proselytize, and made some inroads with the students of the Ècole Polytechnique, but found new converts were subject to flimsy loyalties. However in the following months after the July Revolution, they began to attract a larger following among students and disaffected intellectuals. The revolution had the power of the working classes, but Saint-Simonians were among the first to point out that their economic circumstances were unchanged. These believers claimed that they alone were suited to lead the proletariat into a society where class distinction would be abolished Through lectures and tracts, they gained some support among the artisans of Paris and Lyons, although they failed utterly with an attempt to put doctrine into practice through communal workshops. In January 1831, the movement took over the Globe, Lecuyer’s old mouthpiece. It had no more than five-hundred subscribers, but free copies were often distributed en masse to students and workers.

IuQoiaf.jpg

Claude Henri de Rouvroy, comte de Saint-Simon

Saint-Simonians saw themselves in pursuit of a statist co-operative in which exploitation (although not necessarily inequality) was abolished. In private they lived how they preached, dwelling in familial groups of intellectuals. There were factionalist tendencies within the group; Buchez disliked pure republicanism as a response to the commercialization and competition of the new society, and advocated a dictatorial authority capable of radical reformation. Enfain, a former polytechnician, developed a spiritual side of Saint-Simonism, and made the late Saint-Simon into a messianic figure. He gave to them the authoritarianism and mysticism that had been rejected by a loss of Christian faith and a disdain for Voltairean rationalism. It advocated the rejuvenation of the body, and translated spiritualism into a desire for fraternal humanism. Beyond the political, it nonetheless scorned unearned privilege, inherited wealth, the aristocracy, while appealing the ambitious young of the middle class. The redemption of order, accompanied by progress, and radical liberalism, unshackled by the bourgeois egoism, gave it a distinctive taste; machinery was poetic and God’s work was in the engine. Industrialization would create wealth, aided by capital from the state, and consequently the divisions of class would disappear as man exploited nature, rather than other men. The theory was positivist and its religious elements were free of formalized metaphysics; the theories claimed to be scientific in origin and nature.

Q6QTUcg.jpg

Philippe Buchez, an early follower of Saint-Simon.

Not unlike Babeuvism—François-Noël Babeuf’s radicalist republican ideology—the movement attacked idlers living off the land and rents, and concurrently praised the workers. But it repudiated the democratic heritage of Babeuvism, preferring the authoritarian and hierachial outcome of the movement. The divisions of inherited wealth would be abolished, and replaced by capacity of merit; command and reward owed to those who had proven their merits to worth and work; the elite in control of culture and economy; the realisation of a perfect totalitarian principle. The divisions in the movement were profoundest in the procedure to this endgame. Bazard disliked the emphasis placed on the superstition and mystical tactics promoted by Enfantin. Contrarily, Enfantin stressed the “priestly unit” and alienated bohemians through his veneration of the women. The movement had much weakened by this opinion, yet found one important disciple. Buchez, a Catholic, was attracted by their anti-competitive ideas and stress on improving the welfare of the poor, but he remained hostile to the entrepreneur and preferred workers cooperatives. He held meetings that grew to rival those of Saint-Simonism, and began publishing L'Européen, propounded by Christian Socialism.

Q9OZH7H.jpg
fJ4lAbA.png

Bazard (left), and Enfantin in the religious uniform of Saint-Simonism (right).

A fringe movement of ideology, perhaps intriguing to the intellectual mind or the agitated artisan, Saint-Simonism remained far less effective in organization than the republican movement. In the June Monarchy, the republican movement remained predominantly bourgeois. It was stuffed with doctors and medical students, sharing the discontents of an overcrowded profession, and in contact with the ills of lower society. For the first time, much to the credit of Les Hommes, the republican movement understood the power of the working class. Nonetheless, a gap between the republicans and the working classes persisted. They had little impact on the true proletariat of the new industrial centers, and elsewhere, such as Marseilles and Toulon, their influence on the lower classes was restricted by the legitimist tradition. Their support was most potent among the artisans of Paris and Lyons, and changing this pattern would have been no easy task. Republicanism was a weak minority for so long as the petite bourgeoisie beloved the Orleanist order. And worse yet, the Republicans were divided amongst themselves; unified only in their hatred of the royal monarchy, many were Bonapartists, others were Jacobins and moderate liberals; some were concerned with liberty, others with external warfare, fewer still with social needs. Forming an elite of a petty official and intellectual class finding support in the dissatisfied Parisian artisan, and society’s ill-rewarded. This exclusion was reflected in the organization of the new systems, however effective, authority and hierarchy triumphed.

In the aftermath of the events of June and July 1830, republicans refused the atmosphere of parliamentary opposition. The Society of Good Fellows, overtaken in the provinces by radical republicans, demanded that the people’s will should be observed, and repudiated the oath to the King of France. Carrel in the National with his distrust of popular conservatism and disdain for fellow republicans, attempted to promote the parliamentary tradition and oppose royal power. Elsewhere, with the discredited liberal movement aggravated the failure of La Fayette, who had kissed the new monarchy into life, the republicans began to look for new hope. They expelled Voltaire, now the deity of the free-thinking conservative bourgeoisie, and adopted Rousseau, more inspiring to a romantic generation, and his concept of “general will” entered the republican vocabulary. As a result, the philosophy of republicanism intensified; some wanted all property to be owned by the state, and therefore make lethargy (an aristocratic virtue) a crime of state theft, others wanted a groomed elite which, read to act at the right moment, would convert the working classes to republican virtue, and not the more onerous and diverse republican ideology. The Charbonnerie Democratique Universelle, founded by Buonarroti, crafted this belief, and did much to spread the creed of violence and conspiracy, teaching contempt for individual rights in the face of the greater good. Liberal republicanism, although potent, was not the most active or broadly influential constituency. The radical tendencies, inflamed by the deprivation of a parliamentary constituency, tended to dominate. New organizations emerged everywhere, such as the Association pour l’Instruction Gratuite du Peuple, founded in order to disseminate republican virtue, and included influential politicians, such as La Fayette, Dupont, and Barrot. It was purely Parisian, resulting from the administration for the workers felt by such men, and initiated by students who did the teaching. At its peak, as many as 2,500 adults were receiving courses on a variety of matters, but enthusiasm ebbed as it became less fashionable and more difficult to recruit without steady payment.

hPDIGC3.jpg

Voltaire out, Rousseau in.

Many members of these groups also belonged to associations which were directly political in activity and openly republican. The first was the Societe des Amis du Peuple, formed around a nucleus of young men, notably Cavignac and Leroux [1], who desired a republican France and went about creating it in an unrestrained way which won them the hostility not only of the Journal des Débats, but also of Carrel’s National. Supported by Leroux’s Le Républicain, it tried to whip the crowds in the summer of 1830 to achieve a more radical constitution and produce large-scale riots. When in September 1830 the National Guard in the Rue Montmartre invaded one of their meeting, their meetings became more secretive, combining the rhetoric of Jacobinism and Saint-Simonism, and producing a discourse of radical change in society, and opposition to the conservative bourgeoisie. Many of their members believed in a strong central government, endowed with universal suffrage, and charged to a moral reformation of mankind; monarchy was thus an evil force that had to be purged to redeem the human spirit. Shortly after the creation of the Societe des Amis du Peuple, the third Grand Master was seized and sentenced to nearly three decades in prison. Les Hommes was a small vanguard of mob insurrection; it’s composition was the most class-mixed, generally comprising the most politically aware of the working class and led by a string of intellectual petite bourgeois Grand Masters. Les Hommes, among France’s best known organizations, had a dubious association, but by 1830 was in no breach of law for its existence. Roy de Brye [2], the arrested Grand Master, was kept distant from his organization, but the absence provided an opportunity for a break from the long tradition of vanguard operations. Lacking a dependable central leadership, and no with control imposed from the Grand Masters, Les Hommes quickly grew in size. With no internal authority endowed with the prerogative able to restrain the rapid accretion of personages, Les Hommes became a popular association of the “Ultra-Republicans”. It gathered over a thousand members, and formed adhesive cohorts that allowed distance between the society and the dispersed units. It practiced pacifism and violence when it suited them; the Grand Master was able to come covertly into contact with associates despite imprisonment and remained (albeit uneasily) as the chef de society. The size of the organization ensured factionalism and internal politics emerged, although the bulk of the society remained committed to a strong central government with universal suffrage—the long sought policy of Les Hommes.

In the cabarets of Paris republicans gathered to drink and debate or to drink and sing. Often the major republican societies formed goguettes, singing societies, where republicans would specialize in radically political songs. Moreau sang “Le Peuple a faim”or “Le Prolétaire” in which he prophesied the triumph of the working class over the wealthy....


[1] @MastahCheef117
[2] @Dadarian
 
((Are the children still not allowed to vote? :p Also can you provide ingame map of France? Curios to see how it look now ingame)).
 
UkUwhTR.png

Sur la nécessité d'une réforme tarifaire

The essential tasks of any state are to ensure the rule of law, the defense of civil liberty, the maintenance of the general order, and the regulation of the internal and external markets. While the first three tasks of government are fundamental constituents of prudent statesmanship the latter task is wherein the greatest measure of political competition lies. The market as a concept is a complex relationship of economic activities that can be broken into constituent parts for better analysis and policy making, but is all interlinked as one great mass of economic activity. For the purposes of government policy the primary relationship between a market and a state is the extent of the state’s intentional involvement, and more importantly regulation, of the market. The principle of less involvement on the part of government in the activities of the market is sound for it removes the arbiter of official power and legitimacy from the field of constructive competition. This is particularly true in the internal market of a nation, that is to say the trading of goods and services within the political boundaries of the sovereign nation. One of the great achievements of the Revolution of 1789 was to abolish the obsolete customs barriers that existed within the Kingdom of France. This is because the unity of the market lends itself firstly to the prosperity and liberty of the nation and secondly to the unity of the nation. By trading with all Frenchmen, free of customs borders we unite all the French as one single entity not held down by aristocratic privilege or parochial prejudices.

On the matter of external markets is without doubt that some tariff must be maintained on most goods that cross national boundaries. Without this economic measure the government would lose needed revenue, domestic industry would lack required minimums of preference, and the concept of nationhood would be open to undermining forces of international exploitation. However, this is not to say that while the tariff is a necessary part of the government policy in governing the import of goods from outside France into our nation the tariff is something inherently good or to be celebrated. Rather, government policy should be to find the lowest rate possible for the tariff while securing those three goals mentioned above, namely revenue, preference for domestic industry, and national protection. It is well known that a lower tariff rate increases the imports of material needed to further industry and enterprise all while lowering the costs of the material, bringing in more participants into the economy. Therefore, a lower tariff will lead to lower costs for consumers and the increased ability of enterprising investors in our economy to grow the nascent industry of the nation. Having examined the tariffs of our nation, following the election the Chamber of Deputies should move to pass in the budget a general 5% reduction in all tariff rates barring the tariff on grain and pig iron. Those two tariffs serve a major function of protecting key domestic industries that are important for the economic stability and national security of France.

- Clément Larousse
 
Faction: Gauche Dynastique

[Liberal Ideologue +1 PP]
[Loire]