“HE OFFERED FRANCE ORDER AND SECURITY AGAINST SOCIAL UNREST.”HOW FAR DOES THIS VIEW EXPLAIN THE SUCCESS OF NAPOLEON III FIRST IN BECOMING PRESIDENT OF FRANCE AND THEN IN ESTABLISHING THE SECOND EMPIRE? Louis Napoleon modelled himself on his famous uncle Napoleon Bonaparte and consequently believed that he was destined to rule France. As early as 1836, he attempted to seize power in Strasbourg and only succeeded in getting himself arrested and exiled to America. His second attempt in 1840 ended in similar fashion only this time he was given a life sentence at the fortress of Ham. Yet in December 1848 he polled an overwhelming seven and a half million votes compared to the one and a half million of his nearest rival. This change in his fortunes could be explained in the French electorate’s fear of the social unrest that was posed by the socialist elements. They turned to Louis Napoleon as the man who would guarantee order and stability. But his success was not simply founded on his ability to ensure order. Surely the socialist elements would not have given him their support if that was all he stood for. Had it simply been about that one issue it would have been logical to vote the tried and tested Cavaignac the man who had crushed the socialist insurrection that June. Louis Napoleon meant different things to different sections of the French populace which is why all of them believed him to be their man. As this essay shall show he was a champion of order to the propertied classes, a champion of workers’ interests while the very fact of his famous name held out the promise of military conquest and national glory to those interested. This essay shall show that his use of force was the single most important factor behind his success in establishing the Second Empire in December 1852. Napoleon III’s success in becoming president stemmed in part from the general belief that he could give France order and security after the chaos and violence that had rocked France in June that year. The 1848 presidential elections were held in a climate of fear and general insecurity as a result of the violence that had gripped France as workers and other socialist elements waged a vicious and bloody uprising aimed at turning France into a socialist state. The provisional government had declared a state of emergency and used the army to quell the rising in two days of brutal massacres which have gone down in history as the ‘June Days’. Dennis Richards puts the number of workers and their supporters killed at ten thousand. D. Thomson estimates that a further eleven thousand were either summarily executed or imprisoned in the aftermath of the fighting. Just as Napoleon Bonaparte had stepped in to stabilise France after the violence and uncertainty of the ‘Terror’ and inefficiency of the Directory in 1799, Louis Napoleon III now proposed to stabilise France in the aftermath of this ghastly scenario. The bourgeoisie and other propertied classes wholeheartedly endorsed him as the man who would safeguard their property rights against the ‘red peril’ of the socialists that filled so many of them with fear. Napoleon III was regarded in many circles as the best hope for order and security because of his famous ancestry and because he had not been involved in the June disturbances. Napoleon III benefited from his famous name which was associated by many ordinary people with orderly and efficient government. Just because he now promised the same order and efficiency that ordinary Frenchmen associated with his legendary uncle, they considered him to be the right man for the job. He was also held to be ideal because out of the three candidates he alone had not been involved in any way with the June disturbances that had tarnished his rivals. General Cavaignac was hated especially among the workers as the ‘butcher’ who mercilessly used his troops to massacre their colleagues in June. Larmatine was hated as part of the provisional government that had declared a state of emergency and handed over all executive authority to Cavaignac to butcher the socialists. Thus Napoleon III was the only one with a clean slate and without enemies. He was therefore the best hope for order. Napoleon III however had much more than his promise of order and security to thank for his success. There were so many other important factors not least of all the appeal of his name and his willingness to use force among other things. There is certainly no denying the significant role played by his famous ancestry. It was enough to many ordinary and politically naïve people that he was the nephew of the great Napoleon Bonaparte especially at this time when there was a growth of ‘The Napoleonic Legend’. He was fortunate enough to have come at a time when many Frenchmen were bored with over thirty years enforced peace and emasculation imposed by the Vienna Settlement. Even the tame cautious policy of Louis Philippe did nothing to assuage the longing for the exciting and glorious era of the Napoleonic conquests that had made France great and feared throughout Europe. Louis Philippe had unwittingly contributed to the nostalgia for the Napoleonic era by completing the Museum of Victories in Paris, naming streets and bridges after Napoleon’s battles and victories. He had even brought back Napoleon’s remains for reburial in France. As a result of the legend politically unsophisticated peasants are said to have hung posters of Napoleon Bonaparte on their walls because they fondly imagined that he had seized land from the church and nobles and given it to them. Napoleon III contributed further to the legend which he also exploited by publishing his Des Idée’s Napoleoniennes (The Napoleonic Ideals). In this book, he romanticised his uncle’s career and claimed he would have given France and Europe liberal institutions had he not been prevented by Britain. He claimed that he would fulfil his uncle’s programme if elected. Many voters did even know Louis Napoleon III who had spent most of his life in exile and in prison. Professors van Jaarsveld and Theo van Wijk had a point in claiming that many “voted for a name, not for a man or a programme” and that name symbolised to them “their revolt against the humiliation of 1815.” Napoleon III secured the Catholic vote on the strength of his promises to restore the church to its former prominence in state affairs. The church desired to reassert its control over education among other things. Once elected, he wasted no time in agreeing to the necessary law to empower the church in that direction. He also dispatched troops to Rome to restore and protect the pope who had been displaced by the patriots of Italian unification. He thus ingratiated himself with the church and laid the groundwork for his accession to the imperial throne in 1852. the man would definitely initiate policies to improve their lot. It was not simply a question of their intense hatred for Cavaignac the ‘butcher of June’ whose savagery had destroyed their hopes of socialist revolution. Although that alone would have sufficed the also backed Napoleon III as he had outlined proposals to improve their welfare in a pamphlet shrewdly entitled L’Extinction du Pauperisme (The Extinction of Pauperism). He proceeded to make good on his promises by quickly initiating rail, road, harbour and canal construction as well as sanitation programmes to improve the welfare of workers. He posed as the champion of the common people by turning against a law that the Legislative Assembly had passed to effectively disenfranchise three million ordinary people. By appearing to champion workers’ rights to work and vote Napoleon III was assured of their support which he would need to establish and legitimise his Second Empire. Napoleon III also benefited from the complacency of the Bourbon and Orleans loyalists who under-estimated and consequently found him the most acceptable of the candidates. It has been claimed by D. Richards among others that that Napoleon III had made such a poor impression as a deputy in the Legislative Assembly that some of the monarchists came to regard him as a weakling they would be able to control once elected. Thiers even encouraged his candidature as a “noodle that anyone could twist around his finger.” They felt he would be easier to handle than Cavaignac who was a military strongman and Lamartine who was an eminent scholar and politician. It is well and good to talk about his appeal and promises of order and security in explaining his victory in the presidential elections but it is most definite that he would never have succeeded in his quest to be emperor had it not been for the use of force. In the first place he had only been able to hang on to his presidency by overthrowing both Legislative Assembly and constitution shortly before the expiry of his four-year mandate. He used the soldiers to dissolve the assembly, restore universal suffrage and call on the nation to approve a new constitution that made him president for another ten years. Force was used to quell the uprising of socialists and republicans and five hundred were killed in Paris. As many as twenty seven thousand were arrested, ten thousand of whom were exiled from France. 7 500 000 approved the changes in a plebiscite while 1 500 000 voted no. Thus force enabled the change to this new constitution which left him emperor all but in name. He became dictator with control over the parliamentary bodies, armed forces and government officials whom he had the prerogative of appointing. Consequently it was no surprise when senate ‘proposed’ that he become emperor as it was packed full of his supporters. It was equally not surprising that a plebiscite overwhelmingly approved the proposal in December 1852. He had sufficiently bullied his opponents by then. Napoleon III’s success in becoming president owed to various factors including the perception that he was the best hope for order and security for a country that had just witnessed so much chaos and violence. His accession to the imperial throne however owed more to his willingness to use armed force as discussed in this essay.
Posted on: Thu, 08 Aug 2013 11:00:48 +0000