19 c Europe, session 2.7; France: The Second Empire

Nineteenth Century Europe
PART 2
session 7
FRANCE: THE SECOND EMPIRE

Major Themes of This Session
From Republic to Empire
THE PRINCE PRESIDENT AND THE
ASSEMBLY
THE COUP D’ETAT AND AFTER
The Domestic Politics of the
Second Empire
ECONOMIC POLICIES
TOWARD POLITICAL LIBERALISM
THE ARTS UNDER THE EMPIRE
Colonial and Foreign Policy
FRENCH ACTIVITIES BEYOND THE SEAS
THE DILEMMAS OF CONTINENTAL
POLICY

From late medieval times, reaching its apogee under Louis XIV, the Sun King, France enjoyed
the premier position among European states
French was the language of diplomacy, and of many of the courts of central and eastern Europe
In the eighteenth century, France engaged in the “Great War for Empire” but Britain had
emerged the winner and led the coalitions which ﬁnally brought down the ‘Corsican tyrant,’
Napoleon
Now Napoleon I’s nephew will lead the attempt to restore France to her former status
jbp

“In January 1853, in one of his many savage attacks upon Louis Napoleon,• the poet
Victor Hugo wrote:
Hugo was thinking of the coup d’etat by which the prince president had overcome the
republic, stealing power by an act of violence that caused considerable loss of life. Yet
even in the light of that event, it is hard to think of Louis Napoleon as a ‘ferocious
bandit,’ just as it is difficult to agree with those more recent writers who have described
him as the prototype of modern totalitarianism, the forerunner of the Mussolinis and
Hitlers of the twentieth century. That he was a political adventurer, bent on securing
power and willing to resort to force to attain it, is perfectly obvious, but he was no lover
of violence and no believer in power for power’s sake. On the contrary, at the height of
his influence he showed himself capable of sacrificing his personal prerogatives in the
interest of liberal political reform, and in both domestic and foreign policy his egotism
was offset by genuinely humanitarian aspirations. It is the tragedy of his career that the
deviousness that characterized his methods, and was perhaps derived from his
conspiratorial past, often made even his most enlightened ideas suspect, while his desire
to placate public opinion involved him in fatal contradictions in foreign affairs. But the
debacle that ended his regime should not make us forget that he governed France well;
and, far from killing her future, as Hugo thought he had done, he left her stronger,
economically at least, than he found her.”
Gordon A. Craig, Europe Since 1815, Third Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1971. pp. 168-69.

“In January 1853, in one of his many savage attacks upon Louis Napoleon,• the poet
Victor Hugo wrote:
Hugo was thinking of the coup d’etat by which the prince president had overcome the
republic, stealing power by an act of violence that caused considerable loss of life. Yet
even in the light of that event, it is hard to think of Louis Napoleon as a ‘ferocious
bandit,’ just as it is difficult to agree with those more recent writers who have described
him as the prototype of modern totalitarianism, the forerunner of the Mussolinis and
Hitlers of the twentieth century. That he was a political adventurer, bent on securing
power and willing to resort to force to attain it, is perfectly obvious, but he was no lover
of violence and no believer in power for power’s sake. On the contrary, at the height of
his influence he showed himself capable of sacrificing his personal prerogatives in the
interest of liberal political reform, and in both domestic and foreign policy his egotism
was offset by genuinely humanitarian aspirations. It is the tragedy of his career that the
deviousness that characterized his methods, and was perhaps derived from his
conspiratorial past, often made even his most enlightened ideas suspect, while his desire
to placate public opinion involved him in fatal contradictions in foreign affairs. But the
debacle that ended his regime should not make us forget that he governed France well;
and, far from killing her future, as Hugo thought he had done, he left her stronger,
economically at least, than he found her.”
Gordon A. Craig, Europe Since 1815, Third Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 1971. pp. 168-69.
O deuil! par un bandit féroce
L’avenir est mort poignardé!1
1 O sorrow! By a ferocious bandit / The future has been stabbed to death!

The Prince President and the Assembly

“The man who had been carried to political prominence by the revival of the
Napoleonic legend in the 1840s and elected on the strength of his name to the position of
president of the French Republic in December 1848 was not, at first sight, a commanding
figure…”
Craig, op. cit., p. 169.

figure. Short in stature and already given to corpulence, he had a sallow complexion and
a somewhat melancholy cast of features that led the governor-general of Paris, Gen.
Changarnier, to describe him, in an irreverent moment, as a ‘depressed parrot.…”

figure. Short in stature and already given to corpulence, he had a sallow complexion and
a somewhat melancholy cast of features that led the governor-general of Paris, Gen.
Changarnier, to describe him, in an irreverent moment, as a ‘depressed parrot.•’ When the
Prussian soldier Moltke met him for the first time, he was struck by the immobility of his
features and ‘the almost extinct look of his eyes,’ as well as his ‘friendly and good-
natured smile which has nothing Napoleonic about it. He mostly sits quietly with his head
on one side.•’
“The appearance was misleading. Behind the pleasant, if enigmatic, mask, a keen
political intelligence was making an estimate of the balance of political forces in France.
Although his first action was to take an oath ‘to remain faithful to the democratic
republic,’ and although he had declared that he would ‘regard as enemies of the country
all those who endeavor to change by illegal means that which France has established,’
Louis Napoleon did not regard himself as committed to the republic. He seems, indeed, to
have regarded the tremendous vote that elected him to the presidency as a sign of general
dissatisfaction with the existing regime; and he might have acted immediately to
overthrow it, as some of his intimates wished him to do, if he had not considered it wiser
to wait until he was sure of the strength of his popular support.”

“In May 1849, elections were held for the Legislative Assembly, and the results showed a
serious diminution of national support for the republic. Out of 750 deputies, only a third
could be described as republicans: seventy-five followers of Lamartine and 180 democrats
and socialists. Moreover, even this remnant seemed determined to destroy itself, and only a
month after the elections, came pretty close to doing so in an ill-considered gesture against
the prince president.
“This came as a result of certain events that were transpiring in Rome, where the pope
had been forced to flee from the city during the revolutionary disturbances of 1848, and a
Roman republic had been established under Giuseppe Mazzini.…”
Craig, op. cit., pp. 169-70.

“In May 1849, elections were held for the Legislative Assembly, and the results showed a
serious diminution of national support for the republic. Out of 750 deputies, only a third
could be described as republicans: seventy-five followers of Lamartine and 180 democrats
and socialists. Moreover, even this remnant seemed determined to destroy itself, and only a
month after the elections, came pretty close to doing so in an ill-considered gesture against
the prince president.
“This came as a result of certain events that were transpiring in Rome, where the pope
had been forced to flee from the city during the revolutionary disturbances of 1848, and a
Roman republic had been established under Giuseppe Mazzini. A French military expedition
under Gen. Oudinot had been dispatched to Italy with the vague mission of effecting a
reconciliation between the pope and his people; but at the end of April 1849 it had become
involved in fighting around Rome, and Louis Napoleon ordered Oudinot to begin an all-out
offensive against the rebels in the city. In France, the republican leaders in the Assembly
immediately accused the president of acceding his authority and violating the constitution of
1848, which stipulated that France ‘should never turn her arms against the liberty of any
nation.’ Their declaration that they would defend the constitution, if necessary, ‘by force of
arms’ touched off demonstrations and riots in Paris on June 13 and in Toulouse, Perpignan,
Strasbourg, and Lyon in the days that followed. Except in Lyon, however, where barricades
had to be reduced by artillery fire, these émeutes were at best halfhearted and were easily
suppressed. Their real importance was that they made it easy for the French right to take
positive action against republicanism.”

“Thus, the Assembly, whose majority was now strongly monarchist, ordered the
arrest of thirty-three republican deputies, enacted legislation closing the political clubs
that had been their centers of agitation and propaganda, and passed a new press law
against ‘the spirit of revolt and disorder.’ Having dispersed the leaders of the opposition
and silenced their newspapers, they pushed their advantage further; and, in the months
that followed, they revised the franchise by introducing property and residence
requirements, and thus deprived three million workingmen of the vote. Finally, striking
out against republican influence in the schools, they passed the so-called Falloux • Law [s
—1850 & ’51],…”

—1850 & ’51], which largely subjected the educational system of the country to church
control, while reserving supervisory rights to the state.
“While the monarchists in the Assembly were thus destroying the republican
movement and earning the hatred of the working classes and the intellectuals • in the
process,• Louis Napoleon held himself aloof. He sensed that, sooner or later, conflict
would arise between the Assembly and himself, and he concentrated his efforts upon
strengthening his own position in preparation for that. His first step in this direction was
to secure unchallenged control of the executive branch of the government.…”

movement and earning the hatred of the working classes and the intellectuals…”

movement and earning the hatred of the working classes and the intellectuals in the
process,• Louis Napoleon held himself aloof. He sensed that, sooner or later, conflict
would arise between the Assembly and himself, and he concentrated his efforts upon
strengthening his own position in preparation for that. His first step in this direction was
to secure unchallenged control of the executive branch of the government.…”

“The members of his first cabinet of ministers were elder statesmen who seemed to
regard their duty as mainly consisting of curbing his independence and preventing
indiscretions on his part. In October 1849, Louis Napoleon abruptly dismissed them,
informing the Assembly that he had decided that the ministers should be of his own
choosing and should, in general, share his views. As for the policy of the new cabinet, he
said blandly:..”
Ibid.

said blandly:
“The Assembly responded to this gesture of independence with irritation and with
some petty reprisals in the form of limitations on the president’s official expenditures.
This did not worry him. He had embarked now on a campaign to appeal directly to the
people of France; and, wherever bridges were to be opened or new railroad spurs…”
Ibid.
The name of Napoleon is in itself a whole program. It means order, authority, religion,
popular welfare at home, national dignity abroad. The policy inaugurated by my
election, I hope to make triumph with the support of the Assembly and that of the
people.

said blandly:
“The Assembly responded to this gesture of independence with irritation and with
some petty reprisals in the form of limitations on the president’s official expenditures.
This did not worry him. He had embarked now on a campaign to appeal directly to the
people of France; and, wherever bridges were to be opened or new railroad spurs
dedicated or harvest festivals held, Louis Napoleon was almost certain to appear. In these
continual junketings, he made himself known to millions of Frenchmen and developed a
knack of saying precisely what they wanted to hear—telling businessmen about the
necessity of civil peace and commercial prosperity, discussing agricultural problems with
peasants, showing an interest in local problems, appealing to local patriotism.…”
Ibid.
The name of Napoleon is in itself a whole program. It means order, authority, religion,
popular welfare at home, national dignity abroad. The policy inaugurated by my
election, I hope to make triumph with the support of the Assembly and that of the
people.

“…Before long, people were shouting ‘Vive Napoléon!ˆ’ and ‘Vive l’Empereur!’ at his
meetings.
“Meanwhile, he was also taking care to ingratiate himself with the army. His name
commended him to the rank and file; his office gave him the right of appointment,
enabling him to place his supporters in the upper echelons of the command; and he had
long made a point of getting to know younger officers, especially those who had
commanded troops in Algeria and were, in consequence, men of action rather than desk
officers. Many of these beaux sabreurs distrusted politicians in principle and were,
therefore, ideal allies against the Assembly. On the other hand, there were senior officers
who disapproved of , and sought to check, the increasingly frequent army demonstrations
that took place when Louis Napoleon appeared at parades. One of these was Changarnier,
the governor general of Paris, who was regarded by the members of the Assembly as their
protector against the president’s ambitions. But in January 1851, Louis Napoleon—long
wearied by Changarnier’s vanity and ill-concealed lack of respect for his own person—
compelled his ministers to concur in the dismissal of the general, a stroke that deprived
the Assembly of its hope of retaining the support of the Paris garrison in the case of a
serious dispute with the prince president.”

“That was now not very far away. The road was prepared for it by a quarrel over
Article 45 of the constitution, which forbade the re-election of the president after the
expiration of his four-year term. Louis Napoleon had no desire to retire in 1852, and he
could claim that the country did not want this either, since 79 out of 86 departments had
petitioned for revision. When the Assembly refused to consider changing the constitution,
the president resolved to destroy its power by force, and to lay the basis for this, he began
a systematic attack upon the Assembly’s franchise law, instating that France must return
to universal suffrage. Meanwhile, with his half-brother, the Duke of Morny,…”

to universal suffrage. Meanwhile, with his half-brother, the Duke of Morny, a daring and
steel-nerved gambler, whether in the Bourse or in the world of politics, and with men like
Persigny,• the companion of his Strasbourg and Boulogne expeditions, Maupas, the chief
of police, and Saint-Arnaud, the most dashing of ‘the Africans,’ who had become minister
of war in August 1851, Louis Napoleon drew up a precise plan of action.”

to universal suffrage. Meanwhile, with his half-brother, the Duke of Morny, a daring and
steel-nerved gambler, whether in the Bourse or in the world of politics, and with men like
Persigny,• the companion of his Strasbourg and Boulogne expeditions,…”

“That was now not very far away. The road was prepared
for it by a quarrel over Article 45 of the constitution, which
forbade the re-election of the president after the expiration of
his four-year term. Louis Napoleon had no desire to retire in
1852, and he could claim that the country did not want this
either, since 79 out of 86 departments had petitioned for
revision. When the Assembly refused to consider changing
the constitution, the president resolved to destroy its power by
force, and to lay the basis for this, he began a systematic
attack upon the Assembly’s franchise law, instating that
France must return to universal suffrage. Meanwhile, with his
half-brother, the Duke of Morny, a daring and steel-nerved
gambler, whether in the Bourse or in the world of politics, and
with men like Persigny,• the companion of his Strasbourg and
Boulogne expeditions, Maupas, the chief of police, and Saint-
Arnaud, the most dashing of ‘the Africans,’ who had become
minister of war in August 1851, Louis Napoleon drew up a
precise plan of action.”

The Coup d’Etat and After

“During the night of December 1-2, 1851, Paris was silently occupied by troops,2 and
police agents quietly and efficiently arrested seventy-eight persons,…”
“…including most of the leaders of the Assembly and such opposition-minded notables
as Cavaignac and Thiers….”
2 In his poem ‘Cette nuit-là,’ Hugo describes the operation:
Paris dormait, hélas! et bientôt, sur les places,
Sur les quais, les soldats, dociles populaces,
Janissaires conduits par Raybell et Sauboul,
Payés comme à Byzance, ivres comme à Stamboul,
Ceux de Dulac, et ceux de Kort et d Espinasse,
La cartouchière au ﬂanc et dans lóeil la menace,
Vinrent, le régiment après le régiment,
Et le long des maisons ils passaient lentement,
A pas sourds, comme on voit les tigres dans les jongles,
Qui rampent sur le ventre en allongeant leurs ongles;
Et la nuit était morne, et Paris sommeillait
Comme un aigle endormi pris sous un noir ﬁllet.
Les chefs attendaient l aube en fumant leurs cigares.
Paris, alas, was sleeping; and soon, across the squares
and along the quays, came the soldiers, an obedient breed
the janissaries of Raybell and Sauboul,
mercenaries like those of Byzantium, drunk like those of Istanbul
the troops of Dulac and Kort and d’Espinasse
with their cartridge cases on their hips and their menacing eyes.
Regiment after regiment they came,
passing quietly beside the houses,
with silent tread like the tigers one sees in the jungle
creeping on their bellies and extending their claws.
And the night was gloomy, and Paris slumbered,
like a sleeping eagle caught in a black snare.
Their commanders waited for the dawn, smoking their cigars •

“…In the gray hours before dawn, placards were plastered on walls and Kiosks
announcing, in the name of the president, that the Assembly had been dissolved and that
the franchise law was abrogated and universal suffrage restored. The people of France, it
was stated, would be asked to vote on a new constitution, which would give the country a
bicameral legislature, a council of state to frame necessary legislation, and a chief who
would rule for ten years. In proposing this return to the pattern of his uncle’s Consulate,
Louis Napoleon nevertheless claimed to be the savior of the republic and called upon the
army to respect ‘the first law of the land—the sovereignty of the people.•’
“Morny, who had planned the details of the coup, had said that ‘intelligent arrests may
prevent civil war.’ They almost did. Deprived of their leaders, the deputies of the
Assembly lacked plan and determination. A group of them assembled at the mairie of the
Tenth arrondissement at noon on December 2, but they were arrested by troops before
they could decide on a course of action (and then released singly). Meanwhile, the
president installed Morny, Saint-Arnaud, Persigny, and others as ministers, with apparent
confidence that there would be no further resistance.
“He was wrong. On December 3 deputies of the left republican faction succeeded
in organizing disorders in the working class district in the Faubourg Saint-Antoine, and,
when local troop detachment failed to put these down, the troubles spread.…”
op. cit.,, p. 172.

“…With icy self-control, Mornay proclaimed a state of siege but ordered General
Mangan, commander of the troops in Paris, to withhold action until the rebellion had
come to a head. This was done; and there was no interference as the insurrectionists
erected their barricades and concentrated their operations. It was not util the afternoon of
the 4th that Mangan made a three-pronged attack upon the center of these activities. A
column under General Canrobert…”
Ibid.

column under General Canrobert was blocked by a small barricade across the Boulevard
de Montmartre near the Saint-Denis Gate and, under the insults of the mob, gave way to
panic or rage and opened indiscriminate fire wit small arms and guns upon the fleeing
citizens and the shops and cafés in the vicinity. Some two hundred people lost their lives
in this senseless melee; and Louis Napoleon, who had wanted to take power without the
shedding of blood, was never to be wholly forgiven for the massacre of December 4.
Years later his wife Eugénie • was to say to a friend: ‘A coup d’état is like a convict’s ball
and chain. You drag it along and eventually it paralyzes your leg.”
Ibid.

Years later his wife Eugénie…”
Ibid.

Years later his wife Eugénie was to say to a friend: ‘A coup d’état is like a convict’s ball
and chain. You drag it along and eventually it paralyzes your leg.”
Ibid.

“The shooting, nevertheless, assured the success of the coup. Terrified by the brutal
efficiency of the army, Paris was not to rise again until 1871, and then in quite different
circumstances. Apart from this, the troop action in Paris strengthened Louis Napoleon’s
support outside the capital, for the provinces regarded the insurrectionists as foes of order
and property who ought to be put down ruthlessly. On December 21, 1851, the country
was asked to vote yes or no on the motion: ‘The French people desire the maintenance of
the authority of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte and delegate to him the powers necessary for
the establishment of the constitution on the foundation proposed by the proclamation.’ In
Paris, out of 300,000 registered voters, only 133,000 voted for the motion, 80,000 voting
no and the same number abstaining. But in the country at large, the president’s majority
was overwhelming—7,500,000 voting yes to 640,000 voting no.”
op. cit., pp. 172.-73.

“In the months that followed, the new constitution was proclaimed and elaborated.
The president’s tenure of power was now extended to ten years, and he was given very
extensive powers: to declare war and command the armies of France, to make treaties, to
appoint ministers and ambassadors, to initiate all legislation and frame all laws, and, in
the execution of all this, to be responsible ‘to the French people.’ In the machinery of
government he was the motive force, for, although France was to have a bicameral
legislature, composed of a Senate of life members appointed by the president and a
Legislative Body (Corps Legislatif) of 250 members elected for terms of six years by
universal manhood suffrage, its operation always depended on impulse from above. The
president proposed the laws, and they were then drawn up by a Council of State
appointed by him and sent on to a commission of the Corps Legislatif where they were
explained and defended, if necessary, by members of the council. Any amendments
proposed had to be approved by the council of State before the law was presented to the
Corps Legislatif as a whole. That body, whose presiding officers were appointed by the
government, had virtually no powers of debate and was expected to pass what was
submitted to it. As for the Senate, it merely examined what the Legislative Body
approved, to see that it was not unconstitutional or prejudicial to religion or morality,
although it might occasionally promulgate senatus consulta or constitutional rulings,
which had to be approved by the president.”
op. cit., p. 173.

“An important feature of the new system was the use of the plebiscite. Since the
people were sovereign, the president reserved the right to appeal directly to them over the
heads of their representatives. This was a practice that he intended to use only sparingly,
for, as he said on one occasion, ‘I don’t mind being baptized with the water of universal
suffrage, but I refuse to live with my feet in it.’ Nevertheless, the plebiscite was
conceived of, and used, as a means of supporting the president’s authority.
“His power was maintained also by the administrative system imposed upon the
country as a whole. The government extended its appointive powers into the smallest
communes of the nation, making the mayors appointive servants of the national
government. At the same time, in the departments, measures were taken to root out
oppositional officials and, especially, to see to it that the prefects performed their duties
with undeviating obedience to the policies the government laid down for them.
“This was the system of government by which France was to be governed until
1860. The only significant change to it before then was one that had been forecast by the
vote of December 1851. Increasingly after that time—sometimes spontaneously,
sometimes by careful arrangement—crowds greeted the president with cries of ‘Vive
Napoléon III!’; and, although Louis Napoleon hesitated for almost a year, he finally took
the plunge in November 1852. In that month, the French people wear asked whether they
desired ‘the restoration of the imperial dignity’ and answered affirmatively by 7,800,000
votes to 250,000. On December 2, 1852, Louis Napoleon was proclaimed emperor of the
French.”
Ibid.

The Domestic Politics of the Second Empire

“In a famous speech at Bordeaux on September 2, 1852, Louis Napoleon had said:
“This was not mere platform rhetoric. Ever since his imprisonment in the fortress at
Ham, where he had passed the time writing pamphlets on such themes as the extinction of
poverty, the cultivation of the sugar beet, and the benefits to be derived from a trans-
Isthmian canal in Central America, Napoleon’s mind had teemed with schemes for the
material betterment of his country. Those who have called him a Saint-Simon on
horseback have been close to the mark, for, like the Saint-Simonians, he believed that
society ought to organize all its resources scientifically for the benefit of all its members.
Once he had consolidated his power, he turned his mind from politics to his plans for
society; and France’s economy was soon showing the beneficial effects of his
enthusiasm.”
op. cit., p. 174.
We have immense territories to cultivate, roads to open, canals to dig, rivers to render
navigable, railways to complete…. That is how I interpret the Empire, if the Empire is to
be restored. Such are the conquests I contemplate; and you, all of you who surround me,
you who wish our country’s good, you are my soldiers.

Economic PoliciesAmong the
commercial
innovations
encouraged
by Napoleon
III were the
first
department
stores. Bon
Marché
opened in
1852,
followed by
Au
Printemps
in 1865—
Wikipedia

“Napoleon wanted to make France a prosperous country by encouraging industry,
building railroads, expanding commerce, supporting agriculture, and inaugurating an
expansive program of public works to reduce unemployment. The key to this
comprehensive program lay in the expansion of credit; and from the beginning the
emperor did everything possible to stimulate new investment.
“Up to this time, the credit resources of the country had been controlled by a few
great bankers who profited from the monopoly. One of the emperor’s greatest personal
contributions to the economic boom that was begun during his regime was his use of
public bond issues for the sake of raising funds that could be used for business expansion.
Always oversubscribed, these bond issues helped the state to intervene in every sector of
the economy, priming the pump in such a way as to encourage private investment. The
combined use of public patronage and private investment under the guarantee of the state
had particularly striking results in railroad construction. In 1848, there were only about
2000 miles of track in all France; in 1864, the historian Taine noted that 2000 miles of
rail had been laid in the previous year alone; in 1870, France had 11,000 miles of railroad
open to traffic, in a well-articulated network with Paris as its hub and with connections
with all the rail systems of Italy, Germany, and the Low Countries.”

“The government further promoted economic expansion by authorizing the
establishment of a number of semipublic banking corporations, the most important of
which were the Crédit Mobilier and the Crédit Foncier. The first of these was designed to
promote industrial joint-stock enterprises and to open up new fields of business. Founded
in 1852, it was particularly successful in financing railroad and harbor construction,
public utilities, and shipping companies; and, although it failed in 1867, it did a great deal
to demonstrate the advantages that accrued from the close associatiedon of industry and
banking. The Crédit Foncier, also founded in 1852, was a national mortgage bank,
advancing funds to peasants and town dwellers on the security of their property. It has
survived to our own time, as have other organizations like it which were established later
in the Second Empire to encourage industry and commerce.
“The emperor was an enthusiastic advocate of free trade ad lost no time in
attacking the protective tariffs left over from the July Monarchy. There is no doubt that he
was motivated in part by political considerations, hoping to ingratiate his regime with the
greatest free-trading nation of this time, Great Britain. But free trade also accorded with
his vision of a Europe of free nationalities living in interdependence; and, apart from that,
he hoped it would bring solid advantages to the French people; cheaper food for the poor,
cheaper thread for the textile firms, cheaper rails for the railroads, and wider markets for
French wines, silks, and articles de Paris. Even established industries would benefit,
despite the loss of protection, if they adjusted their methods and products to the change.
…”
op. cit., pp. 174-75.

“…Between 1853 and 1855, therefore, Napoleon effected reductions in the duties on iron,
steel, coal, and certain other raw materials and food stuffs; and in 1860, after much secret
negotiation, he approved the so-called Cobden-Chevalier Treaty, which appreciably
lowered duties on English goods entering France and opened the English market to
French manufactures and spirits. This Anglo-French treaty had, indeed, a wider
importance, for it supplied a model that encouraged the general tendency of Europe
toward a free-trade economy. From a strictly national point of view, there is no doubt that
French commerce benefitted from this treaty (as it did from the treaties concluded
between 1860 and 1886 with Belgium, Turkey, the Zollverein, Italy, Sweden, the Low
Countries, and Austria); and the industries that suffered were helped by subventions from
the state.
“The emperor was always more interested in industry than in agriculture, but he did
not neglect a way of life that still claimed the energies of most Frenchmen. He
encouraged scientific farming and selective breeding; he organized agricultural societies,
fairs, and model farms; he personally authorized projects that reclaimed waste land,
drained swamps, preserved forests, and otherwise aided rural districts. Public works of
this kind served the double purpose of improving the land and supporting the rural and
the urban unemployed; and the importance that Napoleon attributed to the social good
performed by public works gave substance to his claim that he was not a Bonapartist …”
op. cit., p. 175.

“…Between 1853 and 1855, therefore, Napoleon effected reductions in the duties on iron,
steel, coal, and certain other raw materials and food stuffs; and in 1860, after much secret
negotiation, he approved the so-called Cobden-Chevalier Treaty, which appreciably
lowered duties on English goods entering France and opened the English market to
French manufactures and spirits. This Anglo-French treaty had, indeed, a wider
importance, for it supplied a model that encouraged the general tendency of Europe
toward a free-trade economy. From a strictly national point of view, there is no doubt that
French commerce benefitted from this treaty (as it did from the treaties concluded
between 1860 and 1886 with Belgium, Turkey, the Zollverein, Italy, Sweden, the Low
Countries, and Austria); and the industries that suffered were helped by subventions from
the state.
“The emperor was always more interested in industry than in agriculture, but he did
not neglect a way of life that still claimed the energies of most Frenchmen. He
encouraged scientific farming and selective breeding; he organized agricultural societies,
fairs, and model farms; he personally authorized projects that reclaimed waste land,
drained swamps, preserved forests, and otherwise aided rural districts. Public works of
this kind served the double purpose of improving the land and supporting the rural and
the urban unemployed; and the importance that Napoleon attributed to the social good
performed by public works gave substance to his claim that he was not a Bonapartist
(‘Only Persigny is a Bonapartist,’ he said once, ‘and he’s crazy!’) but a socialist.”
op. cit., p. 175.

The Avenue
de l'Opéra,
one of the
new
boulevards
created by
Napoleon
III and
Haussmann.
The new
buildings on
the
boulevards
were
required to
be all of the
same height
and same
basic façade
design, and
all faced
with cream
coloured
stone,
giving the
city center
its
distinctive
harmony.—
Wikipedia
Avenue de l'Opéra by Camille Pissarro from the
Hotel du Louvre, 1898.—Wikipedia

“…Napoleon was always a man of mixed motives, and it would be idle to deny that
strategical considerations played their part here. But certainly he was equally moved by a
desire to provide for the increasing traffic of Paris, to improve the living conditions and
recreational opportunities of the poor, and to make his capital a more beautiful city. All of
these objectives he attained, while at the same time giving employment to thousands of
skilled and unskilled laborers while the city was remade.
“During the Second Empire, France had her moments of economic distress, especially
in the 1850s, when the country suffered crop failures, a cholera epidemic, floods, and
diseases of the silkworm and the vines, and during the American Civil War, when the
interruption of shipments of raw cotton hurt the textile industry of Normandy and other
departments. The losses occasioned by these events, however, were made good; and, when
Napoleon fell from power, France was basically prosperous and healthy. This she owed to
Napoleon III, who had the imagination to see how the financial resources of the state could
be used to stimulate private enterprise and lead it in new directions, while at the same time
ameliorating the lot of the poor.”
op. cit., pp. 175-76.

Toward Political Liberalism

“During the 1850s the French people were almost deprived of the kind of political
discussion and controversy that was so much a part of their past. The constitution of
1852 gave parliament virtually no power of debate; and, in any case, the electoral
procedure, which was manipulated by the prefects so as to give maximum advantage to
government-approved candidates, and almost complete disappearance of organized
political parties made the formation of an opposition in the Corps Legislatif difficult, if
not impossible. Newspapers were kept under constant surveillance, and political
criticism was answered with suspension or loss of license, a situation that led to the
almost complete disappearance of provincial political press and the survival only of the
hardiest Parisian journals, most of which it expedient to be noncommittal if they did
not support the regime. Even the universities were quiet, perhaps because their boards
of direction were closely supervised by the state
“It cannot be said that during this decade there were many apparent signs of
discontent with this authoritarian and bureaucratic regime. Most Frenchmen seemed
perfectly content to let the emperor rule France and to turn their attention to economic
or other activities. In the parliamentary elections of June 1857, the first held since
1852, government candidates polled 5,500,000 votes, opposition candidates only
665,000; and these figures seemed to indicate the general satisfaction of the country.
…”
op. cit., p. 177.

“…It was not until 1860 that this mood began to change and, when it did, the emperor
seemed to be ready to change with it.
“By a decree of November 24, 1860, Napoleon granted both to the Corps Legislatif
and the Senate the right to respond to the speech from the throne, which meant, in
effect, the right to hold an annual debate on the state of the nation. It has often been
said that this step was prompted by the desire to strengthen the popularity of his regime
with the middle classes at a time when industrialists were criticizing the Cobden-
Chevalier Treaty and the clerical vote was hostile to France’s policy in Italy; and this
was probably true. But there is some indication that Napoleon, who had written in his
youth of the strong hand that would dare bring liberty out of order, would have
experimented with the relaxation of authority in any case.
“As it turned out, the decree of November 1860 was the first step in a progressive
liberalization of the regime. [2] Publication of parliamentary discussion was authorized
in 1860; and [3] restrictions on press and public debate were slowly relaxed in the
years that followed. [4] The surveillance and intimidation that characterized elections
in the early years were lightened, and the last elections of the empire were generally
admitted to be free. [5] Moreover, parliament’s power was widened step by step. In
November 1861, the Corps Legislatif received broader rights over the imperial budget;
in January 1862, it was announced that three ministers without portfolio would
represent the government and defend its policies before the two legislative bodies…. ”
op. cit., pp. 177-78.

“…This first step toward ministerial responsibility [to parliament, rather than holding
office by the will of the sovereign] was followed in 1863 by the decision to have the
president of the Council of State, Rouher, sit regularly in the Corps Legislatif and the
Senate.
“Napoleon’s relaxation of controls was not confined solely to the political sphere.
In 1865-1866, he instituted a comprehensive educational reform based upon
recommendations by his minister of public instruction,• Victor Duruy (1811-1894),
historian, liberal, anticleric, and one of the most farsighted educational reformers of the
nineteenth century. Duruy’s vision of educational system—providing a free
compulsory primary education for the masses and a secondary school curriculum that
recognized the increasing complexity of life in industrial society as well as the
compromises necessary in mass education (for example, that many students need
vocational training more than they do the elements of classical education)—was not
perfectly realized. However, the first steps were taken toward these objectives and
toward the expansion of educational facilities for girls, and at the same time clerical
control over secondary education was reduced, which pleased people of liberal
persuasion. In all of this, the emperor loyally supported his minister against attacks
from the right.• On another front also, Napoleon demonstrated his liberality of view. In
May 1864, he allowed his long-held sympathy for the working classes to overcome his
suspicion of combinations of workers by legalizing trade unions and the right to
strike.”
op. cit., pp. 177-78.

“This whole line of imperial policy culminated in the years 1867-1869 when, in
order to divert popular attention from setbacks abroad, freedom of the press and
assembly was confirmed in law, parliament’s power further widened, and Rouher and
other unpopular ministers sacrificed to the now sizable opposition in the Corps
Legislatif. When, finally, in January 1870, Emile Ollivier, one of the famous Five, the
leaders of the republican opposition since 1857, was asked to form a cabinet that
would be (except for its military and naval members) independent of the emperor, the
liberalization of the empire seemed to be complete and a new period of genuine
parliamentary government about to dawn.…”
op. cit., p. 178.

“This whole line of imperial policy culminated in the years 1867-1869 when, in
order to divert popular attention from setbacks abroad, freedom of the press and
assembly was confirmed in law, parliament’s power further widened, and Rouher and
other unpopular ministers sacrificed to the now sizable opposition in the Corps
Legislatif. When, finally, in January 1870, Emile Ollivier, one of the famous Five, the
leaders of the republican opposition since 1857, was asked to form a cabinet that
would be (except for its military and naval members) independent of the emperor, the
liberalization of the empire seemed to be complete and a new period of genuine
parliamentary government about to dawn.
“As has been indicated, the emperor’s course along the liberal road had been
accelerated by growing criticism of his policies, especially with respect to foreign
affairs. This was reflected in election returns. If only 600,000 opposition votes were
cast in the parliamentary elections of 1852 and only 665,000 in 1857, the
parliamentary elections of 1863 saw the negative ballots mount to 2,000,000; in the
elections of 1869, all the large cities voted against government candidates, and the
regime triumphed only by a vote of 4,438,000 to 3,355,000. It should be remembered,
however, that these were parliamentary elections in which the emperor was not himself
a candidate. There is every reason to believe that he was always more popular than his
candidates and that he remained so, with the great majority of Frenchmen, until his
defeat in battle.”
op. cit., p. 178.

“This would seem to be proved by the great plebiscite of May 1870 when the
French people were asked whether they wished to approve ‘the liberal reforms
introduced by the Emperor since 1860.’ Every Frenchman knew that he was really
being asked whether he wanted Napoleon III to remain on the throne, and he voted
accordingly. When the votes were counted, the emperor had been endorsed by
7,336,000 citizens, with 1,572,000 against him. After twenty-one years of power, this
was an impressive vote of confidence.”
op. cit., pp. 178-79.

The Arts Under the Empire

“Even in the most authoritarian period of the empire, it does not appear that arts
and letters suffered seriously from government policy. France’s most distinguished
literary figure, Victor Hugo, was, it is true, in [self-imposed] exile on the island of
Jersey,…”
op. cit., pp. 179-80.

Jersey, whence he launched bitter verse attacks on the man he called Napoléon le petit.
…”
op. cit., pp. 179-80.

The historian Michelet • lost his professorship in 1851;…”
op. cit., pp. 179-80.

The historian Michelet • lost his professorship in 1851; Renan lost his in 1863 after his
Vie de Jésus had earned the implacable hostility of the clergy;…”
op. cit., pp. 179-80.

The historian Michelet • lost his professorship in 1851;• Renan lost his in 1863 after
his Vie de Jésus had earned the implacable hostility of the clergy; Flaubert was
prosecuted in 1857 for publishing Madame Bovary;• and there were other cases of
injustices to individuals. But there was no systematic policy of repression and nothing
faintly resembling persecution of literature (the court censured Flaubert, but noted the
literary excellence of his work and acquitted him and his publishers, and the attendant
publicity increased his sales).• Sainte-Beuve could write sincerely in 1865: ‘I owe it to
the Emperor that I have been able to work for fifteen years in peace and security in a
regime that allows everyone to exercise his talents and spend his leisure on whatever
work he finds useful or congenial.’ ”
op. cit., pp. 179-80.

prosecuted in 1857 for publishing Madame Bovary;…”
op. cit., pp. 179-80.

prosecuted in 1857 for publishing Madame Bovary; and there were other cases of
injustices to individuals. But there was no systematic policy of repression and nothing
faintly resembling persecution of literature (the court censured Flaubert, but noted the
literary excellence of his work and acquitted him and his publishers, and the attendant
publicity increased his sales).• Sainte-Beuve could write sincerely in 1865: ‘I owe it to
the Emperor that I have been able to work for fifteen years in peace and security in a
regime that allows everyone to exercise his talents and spend his leisure on whatever
work he finds useful or congenial.’ ”
op. cit., pp. 179-80.

“The Dance,” Facade of the Paris Opera House,
1868-1869, Jean-Baptiste Carpeau,
caption by Craig by his B & W picture on

“The artistic achievement of the period was impressive, although this cannot in any
way be credited to imperial patronage, since the literary tastes of Napoleon and the
Empress Eugénie were pedestrian (as shown by their preferring Mérimée to
Flaubert).The luster of this period rests rather on the fact that, during it, Flaubert and
Baudelaire did their major work and Zola and Verlaine had their beginnings, while
such secondary figures as the brothers Goncourt (Germinie Lacerteux, Renée
Mauperin), Alphonse Daudet, Théophile Gautier, Leconte de Lisle, and Stephane
Mallarmé contributed to the variety and excitement of the literary scene.
“The allied arts were scarcely less distinguished. The musical style of the empire
was, without doubt, that of Offenbach. The greatest achievement of the French theater
were his operettas, Orpheus in the Underworld (1858), Fair Helen (1865), and The
Fair Duchess of Gerolstein3,… ”
op. cit., pp. 180-81.

“The artistic achievement of the period was impressive, although this cannot in any
way be credited to imperial patronage, since the literary tastes of Napoleon and the
Empress Eugénie were pedestrian (as shown by their preferring Mérimée to
Flaubert).The luster of this period rests rather on the fact that, during it, Flaubert and
Baudelaire did their major work and Zola and Verlaine had their beginnings, while
such secondary figures as the brothers Goncourt (Germinie Lacerteux, Renée
Mauperin), Alphonse Daudet, Théophile Gautier, Leconte de Lisle, and Stephane
Mallarmé contributed to the variety and excitement of the literary scene.
“The allied arts were scarcely less distinguished. The musical style of the empire
was, without doubt, that of Offenbach. The greatest achievement of the French theater
were his operettas, Orpheus in the Underworld (1858), Fair Helen (1865), and The
Fair Duchess of Gerolstein3, in which Hortense Schneider…”
op. cit., pp. 180-81.
3 The April 1867 premiere was an immediate hit, and a parade of European royalty, drawn to Paris by the
Exposition, attended performances of the operetta. Among those attending were French emperor Napoleon
III; the future King Edward VII of the United Kingdom; Tsar Alexander II of Russia and his son Grand Duke
Vladimir; Franz-Joseph, Emperor of Austria-Hungary; Otto von Bismarck, the Prime Minister of Prussia; and
other crowned heads, generals, and ministers.[2][3] Of the military satire in the piece, Bismarck remarked, "C'est
tout-a-fait ça!" (That's exactly how it is!)—Wikipedia

“…The French ballet, which had been in decline since the 1840s, now had a brilliant
revival, which began with the debut of the enchanting Emma Livry in 18584… ”
op. cit., p. 181.

revival, which began with the debut of the enchanting Emma Livry in 18584
op. cit., p. 181.
4 A pupil of the great Marie Taglioni. Emma Livry died in 1864 from burns
suffered when her dress caught ﬁre during a rehearsal of Auber’s The Dumb
Girl of Portici—Craig, loc.cit.

revival, which began with the debut of the enchanting Emma Livry in 18584 and ended
(for nothing new or remarkable occurred in the ballet until the advent of the Russians
at the end of the century) with the production of Delibes’ Coppélia • … ”
op. cit., p. 181.

at the end of the century) with the production of Delibes’ Coppélia • in 1870… ”

at the end of the century) with the production of Delibes’ Coppélia • in 1870.• The
pictorial arts saw both the realism of Courbet and Daumier and the beginnings of
impressionism; Manet, Renoir, Degas, and Cézanne all began their careers under
Napoleon; and the great sculptor Carpeaux demonstrated his talent in busts of all the
great figures of the imperial court. As for architecture, it was almost an official art,
patronized by the emperor and Baron Haussmann; and its achievements can still be
judged by any visitor to Paris. ”
op. cit., p. 181.

French Activities Beyond the Seas

“During the years of the empire, France was remarkably active in many areas outside
the Continent, and the tricoleur • was planted in far-flung places whose names must have
mystified French peasants when they heard them for the first time. In these activities, as
in so many others that took place in his reign, the emperor took a leading part.
“He took a personal interest, for instance, in the affairs of Algeria, a French colony
since the crushing of Abd-el-Kader in the 1840s;…”

“During the years of the empire, France was remarkably active in many areas outside
the Continent, and the tricoleur • was planted in far-flung places whose names must have
mystified French peasants when they heard them for the first time. In these activities, as
in so many others that took place in his reign, the emperor took a leading part.
“He took a personal interest, for instance, in the affairs of Algeria, a French colony
since the crushing of Abd-el-Kader in the 1840s; and it was largely under his inspiration
that a remarkable program of public works, port and railroad construction, and sanitary
engineering engineering was carried through in that colony. He was less successful in his
plans to make an equitable land settlement between the natives and the French settlers
(colons), to bring all the tribes within the same legal system, and to extend the rights of
French citizenship to them. His famous decree of 1865, which declared full equality of
rights between the Arabs and the colons, remained largely a dead letter; and the
administrative and social problems of Algeria remained alive to vex Napoleon’s
successors.”

“At the other end of the Mediterranean, Napoleon intervened…to protect the rights of
Roman Christians in the holy Places—a dispute that helped bring on the Crimean War—
and in 1860, he acted, for much the same reason, in Syria. With this Turkish province,
France had historic and sentimental ties—Napoleon III’s own mother had written a song,
‘Partant pour la Syrie,’ which was a kind of unofficial anthem during the Second Empire
—and the French church had a close association with the Maronite sect of Christians in
Lebanon. In the spring of 1860, the warlike tribe of Druzes attacked and massacred
thousands of the Maronites and some Jesuits working among them.…”
op. cit., pp. 181-82.

“At the other end of the Mediterranean, Napoleon intervened…to protect the rights of
Roman Christians in the holy Places—a dispute that helped bring on the Crimean War—
and in 1860, he acted, for much the same reason, in Syria. With this Turkish province,
France had historic and sentimental ties—Napoleon III’s own mother had written a song,
‘Partant pour la Syrie,’ which was a kind of unofficial anthem during the Second Empire
—and the French church had a close association with the Maronite sect of Christians in
Lebanon. In the spring of 1860, the warlike tribe of Druzes attacked and massacred
thousands of the Maronites and some Jesuits working among them. The French
government immediately notified the other powers of its intention to intervene and
restore order and despite momentary opposition by the British, received their approval
and landed 6,000 troops in Lebanon, where they remained for a year.
“An infinitely more significant example of French initiative was provided in this
same decade in Egypt. Since the 1830s, French engineers and traders had been interested
in constructing a canal across the isthmus of Suez between the Mediterranean and Red
Sea. In 1854, Ferdinand de Lessups,• a former vice-consul of France at Alexandria,
persuaded the khedive • of Egypt to grant him a confession to build one….”
op. cit., pp. 181-82.

“…Strictly speaking, the construction of the canal was a private undertaking; but, if it had
not been for pressure by the French government at Constantinople, the sultan would
probably have refused to approve the khedive’s concession (as the British were seeking to
make him do), and, if it had not been for French investors, who supplied the greater part
of the capital needed,… ”
op. cit., p. 182.

of the capital needed, the canal could not have been built. When the first ship passed
through this vital waterway in November 1869,•. ”
op. cit., p. 182.

through this vital waterway in November 1869, it was wholly fitting, therefore, that the
empress should have been her most honored passenger (and it is not uninteresting that
among her companions were such lesser lights as Ibsen, Gautier, Zola, and the painter
and art critic Fromentin).
“In other parts of the world also French influence was felt. Settlements were
established on the west coast of Africa, and, between 1854 and 1864,• General
Faidherbe… ”
op. cit., p. 182.

established on the west coast of Africa, and, between 1854 and 1864,• General Faidherbe
created the port of Dakar and laid the basis for the flourishing colony of Senegal.… ”
op. cit., p. 182.

The Senegal River area, 1853—Wikipedia

In 1902, Dakar became the capital of French West Africa—Wikipedia
Dakar

established on the west coast of Africa, and, between 1854 and 1864,• General Faidherbe
created the port of Dakar and laid the basis for the flourishing colony of Senegal.• In
Somaliland,• Obock became a French base in 1862; and in the same year the naval
captain Dupré negotiated a treaty of friendship and commerce with the king of
Madagascar…. ”
op. cit., p. 182.

“…In the Far East, the French cooperated with the British in 1858 to 1860 to wrest
concessions for European traders from the Chinese government, and in 1864, French
troops aided those of the Chinese Government in putting down the Rebellion. In China
proper French influence remained greatly inferior to that of Britain; but in Southeast Asia
it grew rapidly. In 1859 Napoleon authorized a naval demonstration and landing at
Saigon;…”
Ibid.

ASSAULT ON THE CITADEL OF SAIGON BY THE FRENCH EXPEDITIONARY CORPS ON 17 FEB 1859.—After the dispatch of M.L. ROUX, secretary to Adm.
Rigaud de Genouilly—Wikipedia

“…In the Far East, the French cooperated with the British in 1858 to 1860 to wrest
concessions for European traders from the Chinese government, and in 1864, French
troops aided those of the Chinese Government in putting down the Rebellion. In China
proper French influence remained greatly inferior to that of Britain; but in Southeast Asia
it grew rapidly. In 1859 Napoleon authorized a naval demonstration and landing at
Saigon; the following year he sent troops that had been cooperating with the British in the
north into Cochin China….”
Ibid.

“…By the end of the decade all Indochina was under French control, the emperor was
protector of Cambodia, and French traders were opening up the routes into South China.
“To balance these not inconsiderable successes, there was one very considerable failure. In
1861 Napoleon decided to take advantage of the American Civil War [and yet another debt-
collecting foray] to send a military expedition into Mexico to overthrow the revolutionary
government of Benito Juarez (1806-1872) and establish a monarchy, in the person of the
Archduke Maximilian of Austria.…”
op. cit.,, pp. 182-83.

Archduke Maximilian of Austria. His motivation in transforming what had started as a joint
Anglo-Franco-Spanish diplomatic campaign to force the Mexicans to respect foreign property
rights into a unilateral imperialist adventure is somewhat obscure. He probably wished to
persuade zealous Catholics to forgive his Italian policy by attacking a Mexican regime that
was notorious for its anticlericalism; and he may have wished to win favor in Vienna by
giving a throne to Maximilian. The part played by financiers with Mexican interests in
shaping his decisions was probably less than it appeared to some contemporaries; but
certainly economic considerations played a large part in this venture, for Napoleon had been
interested in the economic potential of central America since the 1840s. Whatever his
reasons, he set out to win Mexico, and suffered a spectacular defeat.
“Considerable time passed before this became apparent. French troops took Puebla [on
Cinco de Mayo, 1862, Mexican Gen. Zaragoza had defeated them, they came back the next
year with more troops] and Mexico City in the middle of 1863; an assembly of notables was
convoked; and this body offered the crown to Maximilian,…”
op. cit.,, pp. 182-83.

Archduke Maximilian of Austria. His motivation in transforming what had started as a joint
Anglo-Franco-Spanish diplomatic campaign to force the Mexicans to respect foreign property
rights into a unilateral imperialist adventure is somewhat obscure. He probably wished to
persuade zealous Catholics to forgive his Italian policy by attacking a Mexican regime that
was notorious for its anticlericalism; and he may have wished to win favor in Vienna by
giving a throne to Maximilian. The part played by financiers with Mexican interests in
shaping his decisions was probably less than it appeared to some contemporaries; but
certainly economic considerations played a large part in this venture, for Napoleon had been
interested in the economic potential of central America since the 1840s. Whatever his
reasons, he set out to win Mexico, and suffered a spectacular defeat.
“Considerable time passed before this became apparent. French troops took Puebla [on
Cinco de Mayo, 1862, Mexican Gen. Zaragoza had defeated them, they came back the next
year with more troops] and Mexico City in the middle of 1863; an assembly of notables was
convoked; and this body offered the crown to Maximilian, who accepted it with the sincere
belief that it was his duty to do so and the hope that he could bring good government and
prosperity to the Mexican people….”
op. cit.,, pp. 182-83.

“…For two years Maximilian tried to rule the country. But he developed no popular
backing (as early as July 1862 a French officer had written home, ‘The Emperor
[Napoleon] has been shamefully misled [by the Mexican elites]… we are supporting a
cause that neither has, nor can have, any partisans’). The Juaristas remained in control of
the northern and southern districts of the country; and it was clear that only the French
garrison prevented them from overthrowing the new ruler. That bulwark was not to last,
for, when the American Civil War came to an end, the United States government invoked
the Monroe Doctrine [not really*] and demanded the withdrawal of the French troops.
Not wishing war with the United States; Napoleon complied; and the completion of the
evacuation in 1867 was followed swiftly by the execution of Maximilian by a firing
squad in Queretaro.…”
op. cit., p. 183.
* Neither the Monroe Doctrine nor its [Teddy] Roosevelt Corollary are treaties; hence, as mere
announcements of America policy, their only force is whatever military menace we can display.
Diplomatic historian Thomas A. Bailey called the Maximilian Affair “the acid test of the Monroe
Doctrine.” Secretary Seward sent the diplomatic ultimatum and War Secretary Stanton had sent Phil
Sheridan’s cavalry to the Rio Grande to show that we meant business—jbp

“…For two years Maximilian tried to rule the country. But he developed no popular
backing (as early as July 1862 a French officer had written home, ‘The Emperor
[Napoleon] has been shamefully misled [by the Mexican elites]… we are supporting a
cause that neither has, nor can have, any partisans’). The Juaristas remained in control of
the northern and southern districts of the country; and it was clear that only the French
garrison prevented them from overthrowing the new ruler. That bulwark was not to last,
for, when the American Civil War came to an end, the United States government invoked
the Monroe Doctrine [not really*] and demanded the withdrawal of the French troops.
Not wishing war with the United States; Napoleon complied; and the completion of the
evacuation in 1867 was followed swiftly by the execution of Maximilian by a firing
squad in Queretaro. Napoleon’s most daring overseas adventure had been a fiasco which
seriously impaired the emperor’s prestige; at the same time, by tying up a large body of
French troops in Mexico, it weakened France’s position in Europe.
op. cit., p. 183.

The Dilemmas of Continental Policy

“The main reason for the failure of the July Monarchy, Napoleon III was convinced,
was the ineffectiveness of its foreign policy. Louis Philippe had done nothing to restore
France to her rightful position of continental leadership and, by maladroitness and lack of
energy, had allowed her to be isolated and humiliated by the other powers. Napoleon was
determined that the French people would not one day make the same reproaches of his
own conduct of foreign affaires, and he set out deliberately to make France’s voice heard
in the councils of Europe.
“As he did so, however, he was conscious of the suspicions aroused by his name and
by his assumption of the imperial title and of the danger of diplomatic isolation. In his
first years, therefore, he sought the friendship of Great Britain; and his desire for the
British alliance was probably the chief reason for his violating his own promise that
‘l’Empire c’est la paix’ by taking France into the Crimean War.…”
Craig, op. cit.,, p. 183.

‘l’Empire c’est la paix’ by taking France into the Crimean War.
“The war achieved Napoleon’s original foreign policy objectives. It demonstrated
that France was a considerable military power (at least, in comparison with the British
and Russian commands, the French showed something resembling military talent); it
wiped out the memory of the military setback in Egypt in 1840-1841; and, in the
disorganized situation created by the war, it left France in an apparently dominant
position. Certainly Paris now became the diplomatic capital of Europe;…”

‘l’Empire c’est la paix’ by taking France into the Crimean War.•
“The war achieved Napoleon’s original foreign policy objectives. It demonstrated
that France was a considerable military power (at least, in comparison with the British
and Russian commands, the French showed something resembling military talent); it
wiped out the memory of the military setback in Egypt in 1840-1841; and, in the
disorganized situation created by the war, it left France in an apparently dominant
position. Certainly Paris now became the diplomatic capital of Europe; both the Russians
and the British found French friendship valuable, and the emperor’s advice was sought by
lesser powers.”

“He could now look ahead to the realization of greater ambitions. He had long
believed that the most striking demonstration of France’s recovery, and the most
gratifying to French esteem, would be a thorough-going revision of the settlement that
had been imposed on France at Vienna in 1815. In thinking of this, he does not seem to
have envisaged any significant acquisition of territory for France; it would be enough for
Frenchmen to know that the new order came into being under her aegis. For the new
Europe would be one based on ‘completed nationalities and satisfied general interests’;
and the drawing of boundaries according to the principle of national self-determination
would bring such harmony and prosperity to the continent that the country that inspired
the transformation would be held in universal respect. This noble dream of international
amity Napoleon had nurtured since his youth, when he had written that if ‘the
nationalities [were grated] the institutions they demand…then all nations [would] be
brothers, and they [would] embrace one another in the presence of tyranny dethroned, of
a world refreshed and consoled, and of a contented humanity.’ Like the most fervent
Mazzinian or Saint-Simonian, he still believed in it and thought it might be realized….”
op. cit.,, pp. 183-84.

“…Indeed, in 1858 when the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, with Napoleon’s
encouragement, united under one ruler and under common institutions and thus laid the
foundations of modern Rumania, it appeared that the process of transformation might be
beginning.
“But there were dilemmas to be faced. Was it reasonable to suppose that Russia’s
new friendship with France, which began in 1856, would withstand the strain of an
attempt to apply the principle of national self-determination to Poland, or that Prussia and
Austria, who also had Polish provinces, would tolerate any such proposal? Or—to bring
things closer to home—was it reasonable to suppose tat the French people themselves
would favor a transformation of Europe that would create a united Italy and a united
Germany on France’s flanks? Even if they acquiesced in the destruction of the pope’s
temporal power, which would follow Italian unification, would they accept the shift in the
balance of power caused by the creation of two new and vigorous rivals without
demanding territorial compensation for France; and, if Napoleon yielded touch demands,
would he not confirm the old suspicions of the British, destroy the tie with London,
compromise his principles, and become involved in a maze of contradictions?”
op. cit.,, pp. 184-85.

“Questions like these might have made another man hesitate. But in foreign policy
Napoleon was always less responsive to doubts than to appeals to his grand design; and
he was given a reminder of this kind in 1858. On the evening of January 14, as the
imperial carriage drew up before the old opera house, bringing Napoleon and Empress
Eugénie to hear a performance of William Tell, there were three loud explosions;…”
op. cit.,, p. 185.

“Questions like these might have made another man hesitate. But in foreign policy
Napoleon was always less responsive to doubts than to appeals to his grand design; and
he was given a reminder of this kind in 1858. On the evening of January 14, as the
imperial carriage drew up before the old opera house, bringing Napoleon and Empress
Eugénie to hear a performance of William Tell, there were three loud explosions; and the
windows and gas lamps in the entrance way were shattered to bits, wounding 150 persons
with flying glass and killing eight persons. The imperial carriage was virtually
demolished, but Napoleon and his wife escaped serious harm and insisted upon entering
the theater and showing themselves to the audience. Before the night was over, the police
had rounded up the perpetrators of the attempted assassination. They were four Italian
patriots who had been living in exile in London and had planned the attentat to call
attention to the plight of their country. Their leader, Felice Orsini, who had spent his life
fighting for Italian freedom and had made a dramatic escape some years before from the
dreadful Austrian prison called Spielberg, was condemned to death after a dramatic trial,
…”
op. cit.,, p. 185.

19 c Europe, session 2.7; France: The Second Empire

19 c Europe, session 2.7; France: The Second Empire

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 19 c Europe, session 2.7; France: The Second Empire

Similar to 19 c Europe, session 2.7; France: The Second Empire (16)

More from Jim Powers

More from Jim Powers (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

19 c Europe, session 2.7; France: The Second Empire