Revolution and Reaction - A (very) French Victoria II Interactive AAR

[m.equitum]

THE LIBERATEUR​

The Compagnie générale transatlantique is pleased to announce the launch of Liberateur, a passenger steamship modelled on the America-class of transatlantic steamers launched by the Cunard Line.

Steamship Atlantic, from the U.S. Collins Line, similar to the Liberateur​

The vessel will carry passengers in style and comfort, with a speed of approximately ten and a half knots. The estimated travel time between Le Havre and Halifax is thirteen day westbound, and eleven days eastbound.

A sailing schedule will be posted at the offices of the firm.

 

[etranger01]

((Public))

In recognition of the heroic sacrifices undertaken during the events of last November, and the personal tragedies suffered in the course of re-establishing our Republic,

Let it be known that henceforth the 11th of November shall be observed as a national holiday, to be known as the Day of the Civic Martyrs, in honor of all those who have perished in the cause of liberty. Though we have been deprived of the company of our civic heroes, we shall never forget their essential contributions, and this day shall serve as a reminder that we must all come together to preserve and defend our democratic rights as citizens of France.

For the Republic,
Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte

 

[etranger01]

((Private -- @99KingHigh))

From the Office of the President

Henri Deflandre
Department of Ourthe

Monsieur,

In light of your distinguished service on behalf of the Republic, please find enclosed your commission as interim prefect of Ourthe. Congratulations, monsieur.

Additionally, I have decided to name you as presiding chairman of a standing commission on sport and leisure, which shall be responsible for establishing guidelines on sport, promoting forms of leisure available to the French citizen, and offering guidance to the government on the matter of official patronage within its remit.

For the Republic,
Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte

 

[Fingon888]

(((OOC with the Approval of our illustrious GM I have made several edits to the Constitution to reflect our intent when writing it. They are summarized as follows )))

1. Treaty approval requires majority of NA rather than 2/3rds.
2. Presidential veto over all legislation, 2/3rds NA vote to override.
3. Ministers may be removed by a 2/3rds vote of the NA.
4. President can remove any Councillor of State.
5. National Assembly can remove Commissioners (prefects).

 

[Qwerty7]

((private - @Korona ))
Citoyen Deschamps,

The workers shall never forget your sacrifices during the November Revolution and afterwards. But now comes the time for peace. I am ending my agitation in Lyons, and you should likewise in Paris. Disband the Free City. The new commission, with Citoyen Veil representing our interests, gives me hope.

Be prepared should that change.

Citoyen Bouchardon

 

[Carol-Niko]

Adelle Pauwels
(Minister of Foreign Affairs)​

(Private -- @etranger01)

From the Office of the Minister

Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte
President of France

Monsieur,

I have recently set about formulating two new offices for the foreign affairs ministry: the Office of Information and the Office of Public Relations. The former is to focus on collecting (from our various embassies), preserving (for posterity), and analyzing (with an expert team in Paris) foreign news so as to present it in bulletin form to better inform the cabinet on such matters -- as a test run I intend it solely for the great powers of Europe. The latter is to operate as a sort of bridge to our national press, explaining the policy objectives and desires of our nation on the matters of international solidarity and peace. In this age of media, I feel it is important to have our own voice to cut down misinformation, mischaracterization, and confusion.

Yours,
Adelle Pauwels.​

 

[99KingHigh]

((Preliminary gameplan. I will put up a small update this evening, hopefully; after that I’ll have to be a bit MIA until next Thursday, but you’ll all have plenty to do.

Here is what I envision. We will play two normal three year spans, as per usual. Then, we will skip 12 years. This is subject to change as events unfold or if I deem it necessary. Otherwise, back to what you are doing.))

 

[Firehound15]

((My deceased characters as of 1867))

 

[Firehound15]

THE COMMON CAUSE OF THIS PUBLICATION AND OUR COUNTRY
A Statement by the Editors, including an Announcement of New Leadership
______________________________________________________________________________________
​

The inauguration of our new constitution and its accompanying republic is a time of great change for the entirety of France and it is in conjunction with that change that this publication wishes to affirm its commitment to those pursuits deemed vital to its jurisdiction. M. Hippolyte de Villemessant will be taking responsibility as its editor-in-chief immediately, as agreed upon by the shareholders of this publication at their latest meeting. This is not a change taken lightly, but one which has been made with full consideration given to the proper role of this publication in our current times. To this end, the paper declares its commitment to the following principles:

1. Truth in reporting, so that the errors and mistakes of prior eras will never again be made. The people of Paris demand knowledge of current events that is freed from the fictions of socialism and the deceptions of charlatans. We promise that our reporting will henceforth be derived only from the truth and nothing but the truth. Our publications, when they err, shall always be corrected in light of future declarations. This paper will never make company with those publications that seek to deceive; it is a publication meant only to inform and instruct.

2. The defense of order, in that this publication will support the principles of private property, justice for all, and brotherhood among men. Greed and destruction have no place in our pages. The good condition of the people of France is the sole interest of this paper and where it offers commentary, all such commentary will be intended to reaffirm this commitment. We take this stance explicitly, that this paper will never support the abolition of private property or its revocation without purpose and just compensation.

Where this paper has erred previously, such mistakes will never again be made. Our chief editorial position is that of civic responsibility, opposed in all ways to the degradation of our public condition. Our primary instrument of reporting will be fact and expertise alone. These are qualities that belong in this this new republic, contrary to the fevered demands of those fiends who would seek above all else to dismantle all the fruits of men’s labors, to dispose of the family entirely, and to cast all men into an inescapable condition of material and spiritual poverty. This paper as well as France herself must belong to men, not to a mob. It is the conviction of the editorial leadership of La Presse that our mission has revealed itself to be the extension of those righteous principles to the French people.

THE EDITORS.

 

[Firehound15]

SUR L'INDUSTRIE ET LA FRATERNITÉ
On Industry and Brotherhood
______________________________________________________________________________________ ​

To what ends should men devote themselves? I do not claim to know with certainty. There is, for instance, no doubt in my mind that a sincere commitment to God has an important place in any person’s life. Indeed, so too is there no small importance placed upon the feeling of tranquility, according to which one accepts the challenges and crises of life without becoming subsumed by them. Rather than claim the superiority of one over another, although I do have my own suspicious, it seems to me that there is a kind of answer. Not in what we must strive toward, necessarily, but in the way we might strive toward it. That is, we must approach every facet of life according to our industriousness.

One’s life is the culmination of his labors. No man should expect to receive great dignities that he has not earned in this life. Indeed, as any individual man toils in his devotion to God, he must so too labor in the pursuit of material conditions. The alternative is to reward the insolent, who demand power and wealth without contributing to the proper commercial affairs of this country. We are drawn together in community, yet there are some among us, elevated even to high positions on commissions appointed by M. Bonaparte, who do not conceive of France as such. They are incapable in all ways of seeing the merchant, the artisan, and the landowner as their fellow man. They see in him only their own failings; is this righteous? Do such men deserve to have their hollow words heard?

Men, women, and children have died in the pursuit of liberties they felt had been unduly neglected by government. Now these “socials” wish to deny them their efforts. Their industry on behalf of a society in which men could work, own business, and act in civil society appears to have borne some fruit. But like vermin, the same men who burned down businesses in Lyon and Paris now wish to eat of that fruit. Little do they realize, I fear, that in satiating their hunger they have stolen from the common weal of France. We must not despise them, for they are our brethren too. But misguided as they are, it seems readily apparent that they should not be given the leverage to threaten the well-being of France.

They ought to voice their concerns to their employers, not to our national government. In many cases, the disputes are a matter only of misunderstanding, where a lack of clear communication between a captain and the men in his employ has led to feelings of undue resentment. Perhaps harm has been done, but is it right to involve the machinery of government in the mediation of minor disputes between men? Having been given private forum to discuss such matters, such resentments will dissipate. For this reason alone, it seems unnecessary to form a commission to investigate such alleged abuses, when there is little doubt that they will be resolved adequately if attended to in the normal way. The same might be said of the unions demanded by the socials, who seek only one more tool by which to turn farmer against farmer and shepherd against flock.

That is not to say that we must be blind to injustice. But to demand such aggressive actions be taken by Paris seems to be the result of an inherent misunderstanding of the proper relationship between an employer and the men in his employee. They are not simple ghosts of men signing contracts with one another. They are fathers and brothers, joined by the invisible fabric of their social relations. An employer has a responsibility to care for his employees and they have a responsibility to serve his objectives industriously. The conditions of that arrangement do not vary because of the illegitimacy of the arrangement, but precisely because the nature of their relationship is a kind of kinship. It is impossible to judge the relationship between one employer and his employee relative to another. To do so would be to suggest that there is only one form of brotherhood, when in fact there are infinite.

For this reason, while I understand the President’s desire to examine the issue more closely, I must disagree with the chosen forum. All this will serve to do is give venue to the grievances of men who bear no connection to each other. Neither MM. Bonhomme nor Veil have worked for MM. de La Marche nor Eichthal in any capacity. So, whose grievances do they intend to share? It would be far better to create an investigative commission tasked with examining the conditions of individual enterprises so they might be able to later propose a course of action to specific employers and employees. Instead, we will hear a debate of little worth that will serve only to elevate the position of the socials to the level of national discourse. While it is not my decision to make, I must plead with M. Bonaparte to reconsider his endorsement of this venture.

MONTVICQ.

 

[Otto of england]

((public))

The following headline circles the local news:

New textile company named Southern France Textiles created near Toulouse by Raymound de La Rhone.


((secret))
Armada de Liberacion des Populara d'Occitania

Ideology

• Unity of all French peoples in a single state
• Liberation of foreign occupied Occitan territory
• Protection and defence of Occitan languages and cultures from enemies foreign and domestic
• Defence of French republicanism from enemies both foreign and domestic
• Removal of oppressive laws that suppress and discriminate against Occitan language and culture

Membership

• Required fluency in at least one Occitan dialect
• Age 18 or older
• Invitation Only

Requirements

• Members are required to either contribute funding, or manpower to the army.

Privileges

• Members of the army are entitled to a weekly stipend while providing manpower service.
• Members are entitled to use Army locations and property as needed.

Ranks

• The army shall use standard French military ranks

Methodology

• Southern France Textiles ltd will be used as a front organization to launder money used for Army objectives.
• Training sites will be set up in rural Occitania and be used to create military discipline and training among recruits.
• Units will fight as irregular military forces targeting government buildings, military forces, and any foreign colonists in Occitania. There is zero tolerance to Occitan, or French civilian casualties.
• Recruitment of local Occitans from occupied regions as informants and fighters is strongly encouraged. Local fighter recruits will be smuggled into France and trained at the nearest training site.

Ordinances

• The state of Piedmonte is listed as a tyrannical occupier of Occitania and will not see peace.
• The state of Spain is listed as a tyrannical occupier of Occitania and will not see peace.
• The state of France is noted as the true home of Occitan peoples, and while not perfect, can be salvaged through the republic.

Player Members:

• Raymound de la Rhone
• Jean-Bernadon Sémen "Vipsanius" Clary
• Louis Alphonse Edmond de Chalançon-Polignac

 

[Cloud Strife]

​

... after we bid farewell to the Prince Royal and his immediate family--who have decided to relocate to his childhood home at La Granja in Segovia to rebuild his body and spirit--we brothers had time to ourselves to discuss matters as brothers do. I could see the exhaustion written on their faces, Nemours, Joinville, and Aumale. The Monarchy they had fought so hard to restore was now only memories. They had waited their turn patiently and gave the Legitimists their hour of triumph but the Court Party surrounding Henri V could not suppress the ambitions of the duc de Levis, who decided upon throwing the advantage of our submission away for the sake of his precious reputation! That man has no principle other than the principle he must have the final word over both People and King.

Now we return to our personal affairs to await a better day. My brothers have decided upon leaving Spain to advance the cause of the Prince Royal in their own ways. Nemours goes to Italy, making his base our mother's old home at the Palazzo d'Orléans in Palermo, to visit our relatives and support Henri V's court in Modena. Aumale has resolved on a tour of the Germanies and the Northern Courts; There is also necessary business to be transacted in Amsterdam, Frankfurt, and London he can complete. Meanwhile Joinville is off to the New World to join the court of his in-laws in Brazil, where his status is of better use than remaining here.

And of course I can only remain here. In Spain. Enjoying this throne for what it is worth. I imagine my cousin Isabel is laughing at me now while indulging in her usual pursuits, just now without the restraint of maintaining the diginity of a royal!

Though, as much I miss their support and counsel, I suppose the departure of my brothers will ease the nerves of my Ministers? I can imagine they want no quarrel with this Republic or Empire readying itself to our north. Republic or Empire? Peace in Europe or War on the Continent? Those are the questions of the day that will answer themselves whether we are ready or not ...

 

[Korona]

The following essay is published in ATF-associated papers and magazines.

ON LABOR VALUE ​

The cause of socialism and worker's liberation is inherently opposed to the aims of capital and the state. Now, I do not intend to embroil the debate between labor and industry in a mire of polemics and theory, but merely this paper is to establish how the cause of worker's socialism is based not out of a desire to alter or change the status quo as to implement favorable terms to the workingman, but to tear down the status quo completely.

Merely referring to labor, defined as the physical capability to work, in the abstract as the capitalist class tends to do does not sufficiently explain the reality of labor within the capitalism system. Rather that is explained in the idea of labor power, which I attribute to M. Marx. The concept of labor power is rooted in the cost of established mental and physical capabilities that the worker produces a commodity. In Value, Price and Profit, which I base my argument off of, M. Marx establishes labor power as "what the working man sells is not directly his labor, but his laboring power, the temporary disposal of which he makes over to the capitalist." Thus, in a capitalistic system, labor power becomes a commodity in of itself.

This is what the moneyed class fails to understand. The system that capitalism has built has ensured that the worker is forced to sell his labor power on the market, and the subsequent submission of all authority to capital. To the moneyed class, this is perfectly acceptable. They see no qualms with the worker receiving no more for his labor than what is necessary for the purpose that the worker fulfills through the sale of his labor value. This is a system that is inherently geared against the workingman, for the price of labor to the capitalists will always be based off of the lowest minimum required for sustenance of human life.

The employer can not understand the plight of the worker, for he is inherently predisposed to a paternalistic approach to labor. It is not a commodity to the capitalists, but rather a right that they and only they are privy to. When a worker sells his labor to an employer, typically in an employment contract, it is not yet paid for. Where else in a capitalist system do you find such an oddity? When one purchases an apple, one is expected to pay for the apple upon the conclusion of the sale. Thus, in the sale of labor value to capitalists, an inherently inequal relationship between that of the worker and the employer is established from the beginning.

The labor costs of the employer rarely, if ever, are the same as the buying power that the worker acquires through the act of labor itself. Thus, the wages that the employer provides to the worker are almost always below the actual price of the labor power. These wages that the worker earns for their time worked manifest as the "external form of labor power", as M. Marx states. Workers need the ability to independently and collectively bargain for the adjustment of wages, for without such an apparatus, the employer will never be predisposed to raising wages beyond the minimum.

In this, I applaud M. Bonaparte for allowing the creation of an independent forum for which the workingman can challenge the aims and means of the industrial and moneyed classes. However, in allowing the Charimanship of M. Germain, M. Bonaparte has made a critical error. M. Germain is inherently predisposed to work actively against the liberation of the worker, for no member of the capitalists would willingly renounce the inequal relationship that they have with the French workingman, as labor power to them is best put to use maintaining capital assets than actually increasing it.

With these ruminations in mind, it is the natural conclusion of the worker that revolution and the abolition of capitalism is the only way to effectively remedy the issues that the workingman faces. Until the forces of moneyed aristocracy and capitalist nobility willingly bequeath their power and means of production to the worker, true liberation can not be achieved.

 

[Andre Massena]

Now firmly in power, Domadeaux revives the old Coalition Napoléonienne and issues invitations to old members and people who are potentially sympathetic. With the assistance of the Provisional Ministry of the Interior, all the old branches are reopened and new clubs are opened, especially in the rural countryside. Pro-Bonaparte and pro-Republican texts and posters are distributed by clubs to their local communities, as Domadeaux is eager to avoid the mistakes of the Second Republic. At each meeting, rousing political debates proceed over the important issues of the day, followed by recreational sports and planning for new sporting ventures. They end, of course, with copious amounts of drink.

Honor the Bonaparte Legacy!​

 

[Fingon888]

Building the Myth
The Revolutionary and National Art
​

In the aftermath of the November Revolution the provisional government of the Republic sought to establish the basis of its legitimacy. The goal, expressed by Charbonneau one of the chief advisors of President Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, was, "To unite forever in the minds of the people the person of the Prince-Liberator, the righteousness of the Republic, and the glory of our present and past victories." To impress this upon the nation he, along with Domadeaux, proceeded upon a massive program of public propaganda. The first of these measures was a poster campaign designed to be spread principally in Paris and the provincial cities. These posters depicted Bonaparte on horseback trampling the white flag, Bonaparte cutting the royal arms from the tricolor, and people of all different social classes casting votes in the name of the Republic.

The second method that soon followed was to task artists, principally Henri Félix Emmanuel Philippoteaux and Ernest Meissonier, to create large paintings celebrating the events of the November Revolution and the life of Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte. Many of these works were produced in 1867 and the proceeding years including famous examples such as Bonaparte Freeing the Slaves depicting Bonaparte and his geurillas freeing slaves in Louisiana, Bonaparte's March from the Sea depicting Bonaparte leading a column of men towards Paris in the distance, and The Republic Lives Again depicting Bonaparte holding the Constitution of 1866 before a patriotic crowd at the Palais Bourbon. Philippoteaux produced a massive 360 degree cylindrical painting The Crossing of the Oise which showed Bonaparte and the XIXth Corps meeting MacMahon and the IXth Corps and swearing an oath to the Republic upon the tricolor. These images were reproduced with state funds into posters, cameos, and smaller prints and distributed through the Coalition Napoleonienne to families of supporters across France.

 

[Firehound15]

EN PAIEMENT EN NATURE
On Payment in Kind
______________________________________________________________________________________
​

It has been suggested in some corners of our public society that the exchange of a working man's labor for wages is the basis for a system of resolute injustice and hatred. But it appears to me that their claims only proceed according to a fundamental misunderstanding of labor's relationship to the commercial process. Their intellectual leaders attack businesses because they lack comprehension of the real mechanisms according to which they operate. In their simplistic vision, there is only employee, labor, capital, and employer. In fact, there are infinite factors that operate simultaneously to the exchange of goods for services. For this reason I believe the terms "labor" and "capital" fail to encapsulate the entirety of the exchange between a captain and his men. They are better termed "industry" and "service," for the former includes all forms of effort on behalf of the objectives of industry and the latter excludes only those things that an employer cannot provide.

There is not the space here to begin a complete evaluation of the claim that the value of a good is wholly dependent upon the value of labor attached to it, but I should add that I am a skeptic of the notion. It seems to me to be counterintuitive to real practice that the value of any one thing is in fact related only by the exercise of human energy involved. First, it fails to recognize that labor is not merely defined by quantity. Rather, it is also carries a indeterminate degree of quality. While advocates of socialism insist that there is no distinction between the two, I suspect their failure to do so jeopardizes the foundation of their entire misguided project. Take, for instance, the artist who has ten years to compose one singular masterpiece. Is it not reasonable to conclude that a person of no artistic sensibility might spend ten hours a day for ten years working on that piece, only to produce a work of mediocre quality? Is it similarly unreasonable to conclude that an artist of true distinction could create a masterpiece on accident? Whose labor, then, are we to assume has entered the quality of the work?

A similar issue emerges in the distinction between employer and employee. In the case of an artisan's workshop, would it not be true to say that the artisan contributes the majority of the value of any particular piece he produces, regardless of how many shop assistants or apprentices aided him in its assembly? It appears to me that to reduce the question of value to labor alone while drawing too clear a distinction between employers and the men in their employ is to unfairly discredit the actual productive process. Even in a large factory, is seems clear that the organizing labor of the businessperson would naturally constitute the value of any finished good, so to claim as some do that industry is dependent solely upon the labor of the employed appears to be an exercise in arguing the demonstrably false.

But even with that matter aside, let us presume as they do that there is inequality in the negotiation of wages. Wages appear to be lower than one would suspect that they ought to be. Is it in fact any indication that those men's industry is not being justly compensated? I contend that it is only if one is to discard and discredit the humanity of the people involved. For an employer also offers other services to his employees. Some house them, some offer training to them, and in many cases they act as a social support for them. An employer is often a laborer's best connection to political affairs as well as the broader networks of French life. While there are doubtless some who mistreat their employees, there can be no question that most engaged in business in fact provide their employees with additional payments in kind, which are not wages but contain value just as wages do.

Indeed, even in those unfortunate circumstances when employers fail to attend to their duties and neglect to provide such services to their workers, the industry of the employed is still recipient to a host of benefits beyond the purely material. Perhaps most crucially, to be engaged in industry is to be engaged industriously. It is a condition of action, elevating the individual beyond the immateriality of nothingness. A worker receives the benefits of a good spirit in knowing that he has the stability of employment. It is a sensation inherent to the condition of being employed in a particular enterprise and it is always created in the cooperative process of industry, then dispensed to all men engaged in it. Other such benefits exist, but it is the most clear in reaffirming the notion that the process of labor is not as simple as the socialists claim. To think about employer and employee alike without giving attention to their humanity is to sentence all commercial interaction to a world only of automatons, in which neither man nor God may live.

It appears to me that when the radicals speak and write of the need to reorganize industry, they do so with an inherent misunderstanding of our present condition. An employer does not only pay his employee a weekly wage, he also gives him a variety of services of immense and often immeasurable value. These are given in addition to the general condition of employment, which offers anyone within it the ability to live industriously. Is it unjust that in exchange for these gifts, which enable men to rise above their station, to live as the heads of their households, they are asked—never coerced—to engage in industry in pursuit of the common goals of their employers? It appears to me that there can be no other answer that is is perfectly just in most circumstances and when it is not, it is only unjust because their employers have vacated their responsibilities toward those employees.

MONTVICQ.

 

[Andre Massena]

COMMUNIQUES FROM THE PROVISIONAL MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR​

((Public))

To: All Department Prefectures

Following the Provisional President's decree, all prefects are expected to continue in their roles, contingent upon the transmission of their oath of loyalty to the Republic. Any official who does not so swear or does not wish to serve shall be permitted to resign.

For the Republic,
Jean Francois Domadeaux
Provisional Minister of the Interior

((Private- @Mikkel Glahder ))

To: Prefectures of Rhône and Bouches-du-Rhône

Congratulations are in order for your successful handling of the situation concerning the socialist committees in your department. You are advised to monitor the most notable socialist leaders who remain in your department and to report any suspicious activities, but you are not to harass any individuals or interfere with any non-violent political activities.

For the Republic,
Jean Francois Domadeaux
Provisional Minister of the Interior

((Private))

To: Prefectures of the Vendée, Maine-et-Loire, and Deux-Sèvres

Given the historically sensitive situation and the former Prime Minister's call to rebellion, you are advised to closely monitor royalist political activity in your department, report any suspicious activities, and take immediate action to suppress any insurrections that arise with a reasonable degree of force. However, you are not to harass any individuals or interfere with any non-violent political activities.

For the Republic,
Jean Francois Domadeaux
Provisional Minister of the Interior

((Private- @ThaHoward))

To: All Officers of the National Guard

Once again, the National Guard has lived up to the legacy of Lafayette and the French nation owes its liberty to the brave patriots of the Guard. Please continue your duties and service to the French nation by protecting the safety of the Republic.

The National Guard is ordered to stand ready against any potential insurrection, particularly in areas sympathetic to royalism, and to dispel any such insurrection or violent political activity with a reasonable degree of force. You are not permitted, however, to harass any individuals or interfere with any non-violent political activities.

For the Republic,
Jean Francois Domadeaux
Provisional Minister of the Interior

 

[Otto of england]

((private @Magister Equitum ))

My Dear Prince,

The two of us have never met, but from what I understand you had a good deal of correspondence with my late father, General de la Rhone. Particularly, you defended him staunchly in his trial in 1861 and his honor after the trial as well. I doubt my father would have ever expressed this as such to you, but this meant a great deal to him, and to all of us in the family and I would like to take this time to thank you for your courage to stand up for your fellow countryman against a wrongful prosecution.

However, this is not the only reason I write to you though. I understand that you are a man having grown up not far from Le Puy and are quite fond of the area, and if it would so suit your interests I would like to have a meeting with you to discuss some possible business correspondence with each other. I have an idea to start a newspaper in the area among many things, but could use the influence and capital of a man such as yourself to really make it take off. So if you could spare the time it would be most appreciated to have a personal meeting with you to hash out the details of the various proposals.

Your quite the industrious man, and I would look forward to working with you on these projects.

Yours,

Raymound de la Rhone

 

[liefwarrior]

((Private - @Fingon888))

Monsieur President,

I write to you pursuant the fate of those loyal French officers stationed in Algeria. I am certain that news of the discord within the men stationed here has reached you in Paris, although I am yet unaware of what measures, if any, you have instituted in response to such. To that end, I am to present you with a request, which might be best delivered after having given recount of actions, both my own and those of men such as myself.

The sanctity of the Republic is without doubt. France is the Republic and the Republic is France. I have no desire, and no capability, to refute this, for it is the truth of the matter, and thus is beyond reproach. However, it is just as true that prior to your benevolent appointment France was not yet the Republic, but, mistakenly, the Kingdom. Just as the Republic, and thus you, Prince-Libérateur, are now France; so Henri once was France. When I refused to join my subordinates in taking to the boats, whence they might strike into France itself, it was not a refusal of yourself, nor of the republic; my refusal was delivered against dishonesty, against the breaking of the oath that I had made, to Henri, to France. Thus I entreaty that you understand my dissent to the Algerian Mutiny not as an action against your person, nor the Republic, but an action against disloyalty.

The oath of which I speak, delivered to the name of Henri as the sovereign of the French people, has now been transgressed, not by myself, but by the King and his Ministry. They failed in their duty to protect the future and present livelihoods of France, and in fleeing from its shores they have abdicated their authority within this nation. My oath was given to France; for which the King was only a surrogate. My word remains pure, my loyalty remains unbroken, and both belong to my nation, to France, and through France, to yourself, our Prince-Libérateur. For the ease of your mind, and the mind of those who might take concern of some ostensible lingering monarchism, I am most willing to refresh my oath to France, sworn to the Republic in word and well as in soul.

To this end, as well as the request which follows, I feel it best that I make haste to return to Paris, such that the oath might be sworn in your presence, so that the loyalty of one of France's servants might be personally assured. Further, I must request that the commissions of myself, and any man who erred at breaking a made oath, be transferred to a locale other than that they occupied prior to your ascension. The actions of the men who served under me and others in Algeria were no doubt done in good faith, as can be observed by the justice of your rule and the legitimacy delivered by the jubilation of the people; whatever the purpose of their actions, that they broke their oaths and refused their orders is not something I can overlook. Being a man of military prowess yourself, you no doubt realise the importance of trust to the functioning of a regiment. If a commander can not trust his men to listen to his commands, he will not issue that commands that bring victory. If the men can not trust their commander, then they will not carry out the commands that bring victory. The men of Algeria broke their oaths, they rejected their loyalty to me, they were willing to abandon the French civilians living here to the ravages of the infidel. I, and many more like me, can no longer trust these men; just as I am sure that many of these men will no longer trust me. This is not a tenable situation.

I still wish to serve France, to defend her against enemies foreign, and provide for the safety of the people against disorder. This would be best achieved if my commission were transferred to a more appropriate command, such that a new relationship of trust, not soured by events now past, might be built. Perhaps a vessel might be commissioned by yourself, that could carry those men of office found in similar circumstance to your doorstep, such that your own hand could return these sons of France to the field, their honour intact. I would be most grateful if this largesse was provided to me and others such as myself. It would be for the good of France; for the good of the Republic.

A Servant of France,
Lieutenant-Colonel Félix Arthur Voyon Jeanningros

 

[99KingHigh]

Book 5: The November Republic

Claude Monet, Rue Montorgueil on the Anniversary of the Republic

Chapter 1: The Liberated
(November 1866 - March 1867)

​

The November Revolution shut close the regime of notables that had governed France, in all its adaptations, since the First Empire. This conservative gentry and their allies in the grande bourgeoisie, forming the indisputable oligarchy of the French elite, crumbled when confronted with a democratic edifice they could never comprehend. Unwilling to allow the constitutional monarchy to proceed down vulgar innovations, or even to revise its structures into a durable authoritarianism, the notables invited a downfall that they could not reverse. Their last gasp for political exclusivity was the presence of the Comte de MacMahon, who might have proved their salvation had he pressed for collective leadership, but instead the disheartened legitimist submitted without struggle to the new milieu and confirmed their condemnation. Even when pressing for the maintenance of the Church’s position, upon which the battles of the future were bound to revolve, the General presented only a theoretical and feeble opposition. The elite abdication paved the way for the consecration of democracy, upon which the decisions and directions of the nation would suddenly depend.

Paris after the November Revolution; an estimated 8,300 people were killed during the rising.​

Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte gave France order, and by that measure, assured the multitude of their loyalty to the Republic. The bourgeoisie would not dare endure the socialism of the June Days; they would have deferred to democratic Orléanism without hesitation had they feared for their property and their liberalism. Instead, Louis-Napoléon earned their fidelity with honest assurance of his appreciation for their principles. He saved France from the social revolution, invited by sclerotic legitimism, and therefore scored their obvious submission and reverence. And who could be oblivious to this reality? Marx could not contain his enmity for the man who had supposedly detained legitimate revolution. The royalist elite saw a ridiculous adventurer, who in their orthodox perceptions, lacked background, education, and experience. Charles de Rémusat pointed out that “he lacks so many of the qualities of an ordinary man of merit, judgement, education, conversation, experience...one is easily tempted to class him as utterly mediocre.” But he was also inclined to see in this “idiot...a rare and powerful ability...his presence has changed the course of history...he possesses an indefinable gift of boldness or strength that distinguishes him from the crowd and raises him to the rank of an historical personality.” In the latter regard, Rémusat was closer to the truth.

Louis-Napoléon exhibited an intense sense of destiny in his historical mission, and the grave disappointments of his early life never dampened the force of that grand design. To guard the Napoleonic tradition, he combined the worldview of a political operator with that of a romantic mystic. One childhood friend, Mme Cornu, told a British economist that his purpose was always “first to the Napoleonic dynasty, and then to France...his duty to his dynasty is to establish its eternal legacy; his duty to France is to give her influence abroad and prosperity at home.” Whenever he mixed with old friends in casual circumstances, he acted in such a manner that made it impossible for them to forget his rank or his famous predecessors. Moreover, a volatile public speaker, he rarely spoke openly and unambiguously, and preferred to keep his defined tastes and views confined to a loyal few. Nevertheless, France was not oblivious to his political penchants, which had been stated early in his career in a collection of pamphlets, including Les Réflections politiques, Les Idées napoléoniennes, and L'Extinction du paupérisme. Though vague and contradictory, these writings served as his “guiding ideas” and reflected the utopian optimism of his formative years during the 1830s and 1840s. They could be summarized by a fixture to eliminate factional divisions, which he held responsible for political instability. And while sharing a conservative determination to preserve the social order, he was distinguished by his life-long commitment to democracy. Plebiscites sought to reaffirm the spiritual link between the executive and the people, as it had been under his illustrious uncle. Through that mechanism the people delegated and legitimated his authority, thereby diluting the representative obsession that had long been the preference of the Orléanist elites. Only a Bonapartist Republic, he assumed, could serve the twin principles of order and democracy.

Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, 1867.
​

From his court in the Hôtel du Rhin, where he had resided during the Second Republic, Louis-Napoléon cultivated an austere militarism that appropriately captured the militarist nature of his life, as well as the method by which he had attained power. His beloved wife, the ultra-Catholic Princess Marie Amelie of Brazil, sought to impose a more regal style, and would not have objected to an imperial elevation. In the early Republic, however, only Napoleon’s military equerries, through which he exercised his power in the initial provisional period, mirrored any dynastic ambition. Certainly the November Revolution was followed by rule of decree, of dictatorship in the Roman style, but this style was hardly considered indefinite either by the people of France or by the President himself. His missives were reassuring, and the edicts failed to attract the stigma of despotism that critics of the regime delighted in exaggerating. Only in one legitimate regard did it attain a personalist quality, and that was by the predominance of the émigré clique, headed by Domadeaux. To have influence, one had to be close to the President, or familiar with him (though such familiarity was not necessarily friendly, as in the case of the Comte de la Marche). This was all the more apparent given his advancing age; he was a degenerate chain-smoker and his glories in America had come at a dietary cost, but he retained his outward fortitude and never dared reveal his afflictions (marked by a ferocious aversion to surgery for his kidney stones). In this sense, he was a proper Stoic.

Louis-Napoléon surveys the barricades after his entrance into Paris.​

On constitutional matters Napoleon was remarkably flexible. He shared an admiration for British institutions with Orléanists, but thought that in France such institutions required a formidable executive to nurture. Following the Second Republic, his constitutional program clarified, and he grew attached to the Executive Republic that would invigorate France without denying it a representative or republican element. Influenced by the aborted 1852 Constitution, Louis-Napoléon and his advisers developed their national model with deference to civic republicanism, but weakened the unicameral legislature by its preference for the executive appointment, and the presidential sixtennat. But it also took what were considered dangerous steps, at least by contemporary standards, in its pursuit of the democratic principle—the direct elections of mayors, rather than previous system of election by municipal council, or by appointment from the prefects, ensured that there would be many incongruent elements in the localities (i.e. in the legitimist West, in districts disposed to social radicalism, etc), which previous regimes had forever attempted to subdue and which Lévis had strained, without success, to correct. For in this move was a grand act of decentralization, even if it was not so conceived, which could challenge the power of appointed prefects (the Commissioners) by the elected municipalities (who could hereafter claim democratic legitimacy), and potentially endanger a central program. Article 62 was thought, in particular, to endanger the administrative unity of the French nation—for what ultramonatone could not now dream of a communal theocracy, and a Catholic majority in the Assembly to make it so? All this, it seemed, would be restrained by the capacities and energies of the President; yet for now the nation had nothing but confidence to afford their new President.

The Constitution proposed at the Palais Bourbon in December 1866.​

For all the constitutional instruments, upon which more will be discussed, nothing could be so impactful as the popular plebiscite, the national referendum. It was by this measure that the democratic principle received, at last, its indispensability and its permanence. Promulgated in December 1866, the referendum in March 1867 served as the foundation upon which French elites were bound. The only prominent dissidence emerged from intransigent Catholics, then in retreat, despising the Church’s loss of predominance, and fearful for the renegotiation of the Concordant, which was bound to follow the Constitution. Even so, many, if not most, of that particular sentiment, supported the Constitution out of fear for disorder, though perhaps not as jubilantly as the President would have desired. Such an opinion was shared by the royalist liberals (conservateurs libéraux), voting ‘Oui’ out of social fear, and who would have preferred a privileged, if moderated establishment for the Church; conservative legitimists tended to abstain, or vote against it, though there was again a considerable few who repeated the path of their fellow notables, and supported the referendum as a barricade against social revolution. In any case, they were despondent about the popularity of the Monarchy, wrecked in the cities, and preferred to keep to themselves and their tranquil estates, rather than stir up any further commotion. In the end, Louis-Napoléon scored a complete victory for the Third Republic, winning 7,954,000 votes for the Constitution against 1,623,000 opposed.

-

Yoou should all prepare for elections, they come next after an interim (provisional edict period extends till I open elections, that is, next week). You should imagine, as described in previous updates, a three-fold division of republicans into moderates, radicals (distinguished primarily from moderates by their semi-willingness to deal with social reforms), and the umbrella grouping of démocrate-socialiste, as well as a group for rallied conservatives (who we can distinguish primarily from the moderate republicans by their views on the Church). This will all be covered in greater detail, but it has been spelled out in previous chapters, so don't start pelting me with questions.