Habemus Papam!

So now both my "lords" are named Francois. What's a man to do?

Congratulations to Cardinal Bergoglio, now His Holiness Pope Francis. Everyone is commenting on the unexpectedness of the result, but wasn't John-Paul II also unexpected? Usually this sort of thing can be seen as a good portent.

President Hollande commented:

 I address to the Pope FRANCOIS I my warmest felicitations and my most sincere wishes for the important mission which has just been confided to him at the head of the Catholic Church in order to take up the challenges of the contemporary world. France, faithful to its history and the universal principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity which are the foundation of its action in this world, will pursue the confident dialogue that it has always had with the Holy See, in the service of peace, justice, solidarity, and the dignity of man.

 I wonder what the new Pope thinks of gay marriage, perhaps Mr. Hollande will consider his views. Within the strictest spirit of fraternal conversation, naturally. The same kind of spirit French Catholics are given by the government and the press.

Speaking of that ephemeral group, French Catholics, Le Figaro reports that about 60% of the French (that is in general) wish for Pope Francis to be more progressive (good luck guys, tell me how it goes) and to be more modern (which might be a good idea, depending on what they mean by "modern").

Vive le Pape!

No Comment

Paris, Sunday 18th of November, 2012:

The Renunciation

In Memoriam.

He's not dead but you get the point.

Well what a day this has been. First thing I learned this morning as I checked the news, right out of the shower, His Holiness had renounced the Papacy. I was in absolute shock of course, as I warrant was everyone else. Like they say, not in 600 years has such a thing happened.

I won't dwell too long on His Holiness's reign, others can do that far better than I and can give far more fitting tributes than this. I will say that I think he was a good Pope, and that there is a great deal of love in my heart for him. God Bless the Pope.

Now, onto what the future holds and here I have to be all political and whatever: who will be the next Pope? No doubt that is the question on everyone's mind. So far it looks like there are several early favorites, but as we saw in the American elections and in our own, it's often unknown who the competition will end up to be. Just like in a political election though, it is fairly easy to rule some people out. I'll just go ahead and say I'll eat my own muttonchops if the next Pope is French, none of our Cardinals have the fortitude or the courage for such a post (all my respects however go to them for the admirable fight they are leading against gay "marriage"). There is however a seemingly strong possibility than Cardinal Ouellet from Quebec, so one of our cousins, could be a likely successor. I tend to agree that he'd be good for the job. Not only is he relatively young (68), which will be taken into light considering the circumstances of Benedict XVI's current plans, but he is fairly consistent with Benedict in his ideas and actions. They publish in the same conservative theological paper, Communio, they have both made opposing relativism one of their primary focus points, and they both consider the re-evangelization of Europe a priority.

That last example is quite frankly what I think the next Papacy will have as its hinge. Which is also why I'm not fond of the idea of an African Pope. We know the media loves it, and the well-intentioned urban bolsheviks will piss themselves on the idea that Europeans are ousted from one of those quintessentially European institutions which remains popular in the hearts of their perennial enemies, the conservative/traditionalists/reactionaries/fascist monsters/anti-semites/racists/regressives/etc. Naturally to us, or at least to me, an African Pope would produce a feeling of abandonment. I'm not against it, not in principle, but I'm against it now.

In any case we'll see the nuts and the hysterical parade their usual things. "Will the next Pope be pro-gay," they'll ask. "Maybe he'll be a transgender atheist Aborigine with autism!" they'll exclaim. "Maybe still, he could be the antichrist."

I wish His Holiness the best, and to the College of Cardinals as well, for their difficult decision. The fate of the Church is in the most capable hands of all...

The Genius of Napoleon III (Part 2)

Here is part two of two as far as translations from FdeSouche are concerned - next up will be some of my own work concerning the life, and especially the tempestuous youth, of Napoleon III.

---

The Genius of Napoleon III

“Embrace Louis, he is perhaps the future of my race.”

- Napoleon I

Part 2: Napoleon III, the Diplomat

The foreign policy of Napoleon III always followed three main goals: the first, to bring France back to the rank of a great power by the abolition of the treaties of 1815 ; the second, to have coincide as well as possible territories with nationalities (unification of Italy) ; the third, to put an end to great wars by favoring conflict resolution through negotiation in a congress system which would regularly meet. Napoleon III succeeded in the first of these, the second turned itself against him (unification of Germany), and he was shown to be a visionary concerning the third objective, considering the later installation of the League of Nations.

I - The Europe of Napoleon III

The Congress of Vienna

After the fall of the First Empire, the Allies erected at the Congress of Vienna a new European balance of power dressed against France, and maintained by the Holy Alliance (Russian Empire, Austrian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia). This new European order was intolerable to the French and Napoleon III owed a good portion of his popularity to his will to call it in question. The treaties of 1815 were effectively abolished by the emperor's intervention in Italy to chase away Austria, and by the attachment of Nice and Savoie.

Napoleon III wanted to therefore ensure a role for France in Europe by taking the head of a movement to revise the borders of 1815. The emperor doesn't forget France: the whole process is a manner to remodel Europe in order to spread French influence. In essence, France would obtain compensations justified by the principle of nationalities: Nice, Savoie, Belgium, Luxembourg, and eventually the left bank of the Rhine. In Italy, Louis-Napoleon supported Piedmont-Sardinia but preferred a confederation consisting of Piedmont in the North, Naples in the South, and the Pope (as president of the confederation) in the center, to outright unification. For Germany, the emperor's ideal was a three-headed confederation, with Austria, the Southern German states headed by Bavaria, and Prussia to the North. France could then control the German confederation as a result of the francophilic Southern states, and penetrate Italy through Piedmont-Sardinia. Cavour and Bismarck would evidently not accept any solution other than unification pure and simple.

However, Napoleon III did not commit to revoking the “European Concert” instituted in 1815. An “entente cordiale” was to form between European nations by the mechanism of regular congresses. The Congress of Paris in 1856 marked the triumph of France: the question of nationalism was clearly asked, Russia was pushed to the margins, the Balkans were discussed (Serbia, Moldovia, and Wallachia received the protection of Europe). In 1862, Romania was formed and would owe a large part of its existence to Napoleon III.

The end of European fragmentation and the application of the principles of nationality were also seen as a manner to pacify Europe, to counter the rising force of the United States (of America) and Russia. “A more strongly constituted Europe, rendered more homogenous by precise territorial divisions, is a guarantee for peace on the continent and is neither a peril nor a pain for our nation... While the ancient populations of the continent, in their restrained territories, grow only with a certain slowness, Russia and the United States of America could, in under a century, each hold 100 million men... It is in the interest of the European center to not remain fragmented as states without force and without public spirit.” (La Vallette circulation, September 1856).

II - Napoleon III and Great Britain

Napoleon III visiting the Crystal Palace in 1855

The emperor knew England well since he had spent a part of his exile there: five stays between 1831 and 1848 that represented a total stay of four years and eleven months. He was impressed by the industrial development and its political system (which he nevertheless did not think could be imported to France). While in power, he understood he could not abolish the clauses of the 1815 treaties relating to France without British support. The alliance with Great Britain would remain throughout his reign as a pillar of his foreign policy.

Russia gave Napoleon III the opportunity to get closer to London. The Tsar's great ambition was to dismantle the Ottoman Empire, “sick man of Europe”, with an expansionary push to Constantinople. Neither Paris nor London could accept the Tsar taking control of the Balkans. The two countries allied themselves to each other in the Crimean War (1854-1856), and won, though at the cost of many lives.

Napoleon III and Eugenie visited Great Britian in April of 1855, and Victoria and Prince Albert came to France in August. The two voyages were great popular successes. During the second one, Victoria went to Les Invalides and bowed before the tomb of Napoleon I. Napoleon III and Victoria would remain good friends until the death of the former.

Relations with Great Britain did degrade after the Italian Wars (Victoria and Albert were relatively favorable towards Austria) and especially after the annexation of Nice and Savoie. The English, remembering the wars of the Revolution and Empire (Savoie had been a French departement in 1792 and Nice in 1793, until the end of the Empire), were wary of any future annexations. Napoleon III was becoming imperialist like his uncle. A good relationship was nevertheless reignited in the following years, especially from 1866 onwards, as Queen Victoria was becoming a ferocious opponent of Bismarck. But Great Britain, with its small army mainly stationed in India (revolt of the Cipayes in 1857) and in Canada (with the threat of the U.S. Civil War), and it's outdated fleet could not intervene to help the emperor in the Franco-Prussian War, and the Prime Minister Gladstone was since 1868 resolutely isolationist.

During his exile, the English showed sympathy towards the fallen emperor. On the night of Napoleon III's death (1873), Victoria wrote in her journal: “[he was] the most faithful ally of England...”

III – Napoleon III and Italy

The Battle of Solferino

In his youth, Louis-Napoleon, unable too fight for his country (affected by exile), fought in Italy with his brother Napoleon-Louis and the Carbonari in favor of Italian unity. In 1848, the peninsula was the theater for a revolutionary outburst and a revolt against Austria, which at the time occupied the North-East. Cavour, one of the ministers of Victor-Emmanuel II, king of Piedmont-Sardinia, began a policy of getting closer to France. Napoleon III remained sensitive to his youthful adventures and the French were profoundly Austrophobic.

Napoleon III saw in intervention the opportunity to restore dynastic prestige, and to make himself the champion of nationalist causes, getting closer to Italy. In his entourage, few opposed the notion, except the Empress and especially Charles de Morny, his half-brother, the “number two” of the Empire, who feared the movement to unite Italy would bleed over into Germany. The future would give him reason.

Napoleon III remained hesitant, and it was the Orsini incident (1858) that placed him in the Piedmontese camp. The Imperial couple were victim of an assassination attempt in front of the Opera, and survived miraculously intact. Orsini, an Italian patriot, wanted to overthrow the Empire, thinking a republic would be more favorable to the Italian cause. Before moving in, he shouted “Long live Italy!”. Cavour and the emperor had a secret interview at Plombieres (Vosges), on the 21^st and 22^nd of July 1858. They came to an agreement on the creation of a kingdom of Upper-Italy uniting, outside of Piedmont and Sardinia, Lombardy and Venice (taken from Austria), and the Duchies of Parma and Modena.

Before entering the war, France ensured the neutrality of Prussia and Russia. Franz-Joseph, pressured by his ministers, declared war first on the 27^th of April of 1859. Austria aligned 150,000 men, Piedmont 60,000, and France 100,000. The beginning of the campaign began with total improvisation by the Allies (lack of ammunition, tents, and supplies). The first victory was won with difficulty at Palestro on the 30^th of May. It is at Magenta, the 4^th of June, that the first large battle was fought, though it was for a while quite confused, ending in the victory of the Franco-Piedmont forces. Victor-Emmanuel and Napoleon III entered in triumph at Milan on the 8^th of June.

Franz-Joseph then decided to take direct command of the army, and increased the number of troops at his disposal to 250,000. On the 24^th of June, a second great battle took place at Solferino. The Franco-Piedmont forces took the day with heavy losses: 40,000 dead, including 17,500 Frenchmen. The emperor was shocked by the battlefield, according to general Bourbaki. Prussia began to threaten by mobilizing its troops on the Rhine. Not willing to weaken Austria excessively, Napoleon III signed an armistice with Franz-Joseph on the 8^th of July 1859.

But the Italian campaign was not satisfactory for many. Numerous patriotic insurrections exploded in central Italy, which menaced the temporal power of the Papacy. Italians would have preferred continuing the war (as Venice still remained Austrian). For French republicans and Italian patriots, Napoleon III did not go far enough. For Catholics who blamed the emperor for the agitations in the pontifical territories (which resulted in massacre), he went too far. The Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia returned to France the provinces of Nice and Savoie, ratified by two plebiscite (1860).

IV – Responsible for the War of 1870?

Otto von Bismarck

Since 1866 and the defeat of Austria by Prussia, Bismarck sees the Second Empire as the main obstacle to German unity. The chancellor nevertheless needed a valid reason to declare war, and to take the mantle of a victim, if possible: the Bavarians and Rhinelanders were francophilic and genuinely liked the Emperor of the French. The defensive pact between the North German Confederation and the Southern states only applied in cases of foreign aggression.

Spain allowed Bismarck to reach his goals. In 1868, Spain chased Queen Isabella II and her son Alphonse from the throne, and the new junta in Madrid began searching for a new sovereign. Bismarck put forward the candidature of Leopold von Hohenzollern, a colonel in the Prussian army. Napoleon III could not accept this candidate, which if successful would surround France, an unpopular concept. The king of Prussia, William I, was reticent to Bismarck's wishes and Leopold refused to be a part of the affair.

Bismarck however could not end it there. He reiterate Leopold's candidature without informing the king of Prussia. This news was delivered on the 2^nd of July 1870 by a communique of France-Presse. In the days that followed, the press – opposition or bonapartist – was envenomed, demanding war to save France's honor. However, the 12^th of July, Leopold's candidature was withdrawn. “I am happy this will end like this. A war is always a big adventure,” said the emperor. In Berlin, that very day, Roon and Interior Minister Eulenbourg convinced Bismarck to declare a war of aggression. Moltke and Roon wanted war to be declared immediately, but the chancellor judged it prudent to wait a little before doing so, to be on the safe side.

It is therefore important to know that the war was decided in Berlin, before even being decided in Paris. The emperor was weakened physically and mentally ; he suffered from kidney stones, fainted on occasion, contracted fevers, and had blood in his urine. Treatment against the pain had him sleeping almost all day.

In Paris, the emperor was moved by the manifestations in the street, more or less spontaneous and hostile to Prussia, and by the fervent patriotism evident in the Parisians. Paris is not the rest of the country, which ardently desired peace, but prefects only expedited their reports every fifteen days. 36 years later, Eugenie affirmed: “to back down, to give way, we could not, we would had the whole country against us! … Already we were accused of weakness ; a terrible phrase arrived to our ears: “the Hohenzollern candidature, it will be a second Sadowa!”.” Then, pushed to war by the bellicose members of the court (Foreign Affairs minister Gramont, Marechal Leboeuf, General Boubakir, and Eugenie), the emperor accepted it. The empress in particular, through her influence, had a large role in the initiation of the conflict: “this victory which cost neither tears nor blood would be for us the worst humiliation! If Prussia refuses to fight us, we will force it, by beating its back with the butt of rifles, to pass back over the Rhine, and clear out the left bank! This peace we have been discussing for twenty-four hours is very sinister.”

General Boubakir, known as an expert on Prussia, affirmed that “out of ten chances, we have eight!”. Leboeuf said as well: “war with Prussia is inevitable, sooner or later. We are ready, are enemy is not. We have a superb army, admirably disciplined ; we will never again have such an opportunity. From Paris to Berlin, it will be a promenade, cane in hand.” Napoleon III and Gramont drafted a statement to be dispatched by telegraph to Ems. Bismarck then had what he wanted: if the king of Prussia confirmed at the reception of the news that Leopold renounced the Spanish throne, Bismarck could write his famous dispatch, a work of disinformation diffused throughout Europe, which rang as an insult to France.

The false dispatch arrived the 15^th of July 1870 in Paris, and the Legislative Corps voted for war at near-unanimity (245 votes – including republican ones – against 10 ; amongst the ten, that of Adolphe Thiers), a decision which Napoleon III had to go along with. Republicans had however rejected an 1867 military reform to prolong the length of military service, allowing for more troops. Even Gambetta, who in his “profession of faith” to voters stated that he desired to eliminate the professional army, voted for war... On the 19^th of July, war was officially declared. Napoleon III said on the 22^nd: “There are in the life of peoples, solemn moments where national honor, violently excited, imposes itself as an irresistible force […] It is the entirety of the nation that, in its irresistible elan, dictated our resolutions.”

---

Translation of an article on FdeSouche Histoire.
“Napoleon III and Europe (part 2)”

Published on the 2nd of December 2012 at
http://histoire.fdesouche.com/100-100
as
"Napoléon III et l'Europe (partie 2)"

The Genius of Napoleon III (Part 1)

Due to my lackluster posting as of late, I thought I'd make it up to my readership (scarce though they may be) by doing a small series on the genius of Napoleon III, the genius of his uncle requiring a rather different and more carefully considered approach. I'll start it off with some articles translated over from the French and lifted directly from the FdeSouche history blog, the first of which is below. I'd like to note that some analysis in this article is not the one I'd have made. Also tell me if the font is a little tinted, I think somewhere in the formatting I may have messed with that but I can't really tell...

I will also get around eventually to commenting on the Gerard Depardieu affair, the whole gay marriage debacle (ugh), and some other important issues. I've got more free time than usual this month, might as well spend it wasting my time on the internet, right?

---

The Genius of Napoleon III

“The Emperor can await with confidence the judgment of posterity.

His reign will remain as one of the most glorious in our history.”

- Louis Pasteur

Part 1: Napoleon III, the Modernizer

A personal enemy of Victor Hugo, denigrated by the republicans of the end of the 19th Century, eclipsed by the golden legend of his uncle, Napoleon III remains seen as a weak emperor, hesitant and idealistic, a portrait painted by his adversaries. However, his reign coincided with an unprecedented economic growth and marked a significant improvement in the condition of the working classes. Contrarily to his illustrious uncle, he left France more powerful than he found it. 

Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte was elected the first president of the Republic in 1848 (at 74.1% of the vote) but it was from 1851 onwards that he could exert power in the manner he wished, being beforehand a prisoner of his government, which, dominated by royalists, continued to run business as it did under Louis-Philippe. In 1852, Louis-Napoleon restored the Empire following a plebiscite (91% of the vote for “yes”), the result of which not even Jules Ferry could doubt the authenticity.

The Empire lasted 18 years, and we traditionally distinguish within it the authoritarian phase (1852-1860) and the liberal phase (1860-1870). The Legislative Corps, composed of 270 members elected by universal suffrage, only possessed token powers in the authoritarian phase (essentially a consultative role). From 1860, the emperor liberalized his regime, softening censorship and giving more powers to to the Legislative Corps (the right to call on a government minister to explain himself, expanded powers concerning the revision of law). Napoleon III wanted to show that the Empire was compatible with liberty. In 1867-1868, the Empire takes an even more liberal turn with the suppression of imperial prerogatives as far as censorship go, and the the expansion of the powers of the Legislative Corps.

I - The Bonapartism of Napoleon III

Allegory of the Second Empire

Napoleon III did not consider himself an ideologue, considering himself resolutely a realist and adapted to his time. “Today France surrounds me with sympathies, because I am not of the family of ideologues,” he affirmed two months prior to the imperial restoration (speech at Bordeaux, 9th of October 1852). In 1849 he was already saying to the Assembly: “I will not sedate the people with illusions and utopias which exalt the imagination only to result in deception and misery.”

Bonapartism, according to Napoleon III, is before all a pragmatism: “Not only can a single system satisfy all peoples, but laws must be modified with each generation, with the situation being more or less difficult” (Political and Military Considerations on Switzerland). A few large intangible principles are nevertheless the foundation of Bonapartism: popular sovereignty, order, and liberty.

Napoleon III intended to reunite all Frenchmen and defend popular sovereignty. In this he learned from his uncle's model: “Napoleon had his wrongs and his passions, but what will forever distinguish him from other sovereigns is that he was the king of the people, while the others were the kings of the nobility and the privileged.” (Response to Lamartine, 1843) ; “Do not reproach him his dictatorship: it had led us to liberty, as an iron plow that digs furrows prepares the fertility of a country. […] The tragedy of the emperor Napoleon's reign was not having been able to reap all that he sowed, it is having delivered France without having been able to free it” (Political Ideals, 1832).

“Sorrow unto those sovereigns whose interests are not tied to those of the nation!”. “Each day proves it to me, my most sincere friends, the most devoted ones are not in the palaces, they are under the hut ; they are not under golden chandeliers, they are in the workshops, in the fields.” (Creil, June 1850). Conclusion of his Political Ideals: “Above all partial convictions, there is a supreme judge which is the people”. He reprises the idea in his proclamation on the 14th of January 1852: “the People always remains the master of its own destiny. Nothing fundamental can be done outside its will.”

After having been triumphantly carried into power, he attempted to govern in the first decade with the people, with no real intermediaries, which has resulted in him earning from some historians the label “populist” (Pierre Milza). A note written by the emperor's hand, found in the Tuileries, reads: “What is the People? Is it the five to six thousand people who meet in Paris at the club or the Redoubt and who believe to speak on behalf of all France? Is it the salons, the workshops? Is it [illegible]? Is it the youth, drunk on enthusiasm? Is it the elderly who regret the past? Is it the army? Is the Legislative Corps? No, the people, it is the entire mass of the nation, that which exerts universal suffrage. That is our master, and those ensembles which call themselves the people commit blasphemy.”
Napoleon III remained popular until the fall of the Empire. Peasants in particular remained his surest supporters. The Bonapartist party remained powerful in the first decade of the Third Republic: in 1877, legislative elections resulted in the election of 104 Bonapartist representatives! (versus 313 republicans and 55 royalists). The Bonapartist party vanished progressively upon the death of the heir of Napoleon III in 1879.

II - The Entrepreneurial Emperor

Simplified graph showing the annual GDP growth of France, 1820-1900.

Napoleon III led an active economic policy by launching a program of great works: “We have immense uncultivated territories to plow, roads to open, ports to dig, rivers to make navigable, canals to finish, our railroad network to complete. […] We have all the great ports in the West to get closer to the American continent by the rapidity of those communications which we still lack.” (speech at Bordeaux, 1852). The emperor hoped to rebirth growth through consumption by giving work to the idle, and furthermore, he was certain that the return on these investments would largely compensate the cost of the development.

In fact, the Second Empire experienced a period of sustained growth: from 1850to 1870, the GDP passed from 11 billion to 22 (the evaluation of historians diverge at 1870 in between 20 to 24 billion), in short a growth of +2.5% (on average). To compare, the GDP was at 9 billion in 1830 and would be at 23 billion in 1890 (still the evaluation of historians diverge by several billion).

Railroads received a decisive impulse: in 1851, France possessed 3500 kilometers of railroads (10000 in Great Britain), this number rises to 17000 in 1870 (2000 kilometers more than in Great Britain). The 1859 and 1863 laws gave birth to six great networks: North, East, Orleans, Paris-Lyon-Marseille, South, and West. The Empire did not neglect roads either, whose progression in kilometers was superior to +43% on average in relation to the two previous regimes (the amount of carriage-worthy roads tripled).

The Empire put in place a modern credit system, witnessing the birth of the national mortgage bank and the Credit Mobilier lending institution in 1852, the Industrial and Commercial Credit (1859), the Credit Lyonnais (1863), the Societe Generale bank (1864) and the Bank of Paris (1869). A law passed in 1865 authorized the use of cheques. The law of the 23rd of March 1863 created private and limited liability commercial corporations, expanded on in the 24th of July 1867 law.

To ensure the industry modernized (as far as the methods of production were concerned), France opened up to free trade in 1860 with Great Britain. Customs tax on basic resources and food products were abolished. Other commercial accords were concluded with Piedmont-Sardinia, Belgium, or Austria.

The economic outcome profited the more fortunate classes, but also the working classes. In 1848, Louis-Napoleon explained his will “to introduce in our industrial laws the improvements which tend, not to ruin the rich and profit the poor, but to found the well being of each man and the prosperity of all.”

Peasants experienced a “little golden age” (Matthieu Brejon de Lavergnee): the railways allow the opening of new openings to the country, the specialization of cultures, artificial 0000 and 0000. If the rural exodus accelerates in 1850, it slows again in the following year, as it only marginally affects the countryside (peasants and rural artisans). The emperor leads great drainage operations and irrigation projects (in Provence for example) leading to increased productivity. The peasantry remains the principal support for the Empire until its fall.

The increase in the salary of workers accelerated under the Empire: +6.7% from 1850 to 1860, +9.5% fro 1860 to 1870 ; meanwhile prices (principally in agricultural materials) were lowered. The popular classes saw their diet diversify as well: there was an increase in the consumption of meat (22%), of milk (+22%), animal fats (+27%), and of sugar and chocolate (+250%).
Commerce was transformed, with the development of large stores at the expense of small retailers. Le Bon Marche (bought from Boucicaut in 1863), the first great store, brought with it certain novelties: tickets to indicate each product's price, fixed prices, architectural decor, lighting, shop windows, and more. From 1865, the Printemps store began to compete with Le Bon Marche. 

III - The "Social Fiber"

Visiting flood victims at Tarascon, 1856.

Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte became interested early on in social questions, influenced by his preceptor Philippe le Bas – a jacobin – and his mother Hortense. He was described by his contemporaries as sensible and generous. Victor Duruy, minister for six years under Napoleon III, witnesses:

“How many times did I see him arrive at the Council with projects to help the weak and the deprived! His hand was open: even too open, as he did not know how to refuse those who would implore his generosity.”

In the fort of Ham, he had written a small treatise named The Extinction of Pauperism (1843). The emperor revealed within his vision of industry: “Industry, this source of wealth, has today neither rule nor organization, nor any goals. It is a machine that works with no regulator ; it matters not to it which force employs it. Grinding to dust within its wheels men as well as matter, it empties the countryside, agglomerates populations in airless spaces, weakens the spirit and the body, and then throws onto the street, when it no longer knows what to do with them, those men who have sacrificed, in order to enrich it, their strength, their youth, their existence. A veritable Saturn of work, industry devours its children and lives only off of their deaths.”

• Progressive Laws

The emperor created a national retirement fund (1850), a pro bono assistance program for poor workers (1851), forbade work on Sundays and on holidays (law of 1851, revoked in 1880 by the Third Republic before being restored in 1906). On the 26th of March 1852, he allowed mutual support societies to constitute themselves freely (these were funds where each worker placed a certain amount of his salary, which served as financial aid for any worker that became sick, an invalid, or too old to work). That same year, a portion of the good confiscated from the Prince of Orleans was donated to workers' housing. In 1854, he forbade industrialists to confiscate and make marks the unpopular worker's booklet (the possession of which was necessary to find work). In 1862, he authorized a delegation of 200 workers to go to England to study the organization of English syndicates ; in 1864 he authorized coalitions (that is, the right to strike) ; in 1868, he allowed public meetings on the condition that they not deal with matters political or religious. This can seem inconsequential now, but at the time no other regime had done so much!

• Imperial Charity

The “social fiber” of the emperor expressed itself through charitable works as well. As President, he donated half of his endowment to charities. He visited factories, rewarding paternalist factory owners and laborious workers. He personally comforted the victims of the 1856 floods and the sick in the Hotel-Dieu. He multiplied his monetary gifts throughout his reign (500,000 francs for the workers' retirement funds in 1856, 100,000 francs for the workers' housing at Lille in 1859, 32,000 francs to Lyon in 1860 for good works, etc.).

More symbolically, during the great works in Paris, the construction of an Opera had begun in 1861, and the project was managed by Charles Garnier. This building was to be grandiose and become, for the architect himself, one of the symbols of the Second Empire. At the same time, the emperor decided to rebuild the Hotel-Dieu on the Ile de la Cite. On the 31st of July 1864, he declared that the former building had more priority than the Opera: “I attach a great price that the monument dedicated to pleasure not be built before the asylum of suffering.”

• Efforts in the Domain of Education

Napoleon III wanted to make schooling free and compulsory. In his speech of the 15th of February 1865, issued from the throne, he affirmed that “In the land of universal suffrage every citizen must know how to read and write.” He returned to the project in the last years of his reign, but collided each time with the hostility of the Legislative Corps, which considered the emperor a utopist. The Duruy law of 1867 nevertheless forced all communes of more than 500 inhabitants to open and maintain primary schools for girls. The emperor multiplied all elementary schools and facilitated evening class for adults. The first women to receive a baccalaureate did so in 1861 (Julie-Victoire Daubie) and the following year, the first woman was authorized to register in a medical faculty.

Napoleon III said to Darimon in 1869: “I could have done so much more for the working classes, had I found in the Council of State a powerful auxiliary.” 

IV - The Builder-Emperor

Baron Haussmann

The Third Republic, desirous of denigrating the former sovereign, attributed the transformations of Paris to the Baron Haussmann, while it was Napoleon III who was the true architect behind the projects.

“For Eric Anceau, it is “one of the greatest injustices that befalls Napoleon III,. […] the creator of the whole, the arbiter of the possible, and even the exterminator of details, was the emperor himself. The prefect of the Seine recognized it himself, despite his immodesty. In this domain as in many others, Napoleon III matured his projects on a long term and realized them with an indomitable will.” (Napoleon III. The man, the politician).

The Paris of the time was composed of narrow streets, dirty and poorly lit, propitious terrain for banditry and insurrections (the Three Glorious Days, the Revolution of 1848). Louis-Napoleon's quick stay in Paris in 1831 marked him profoundly. In 1832, following the cholera epidemic, he was open to the solutions proposed by the Saint-Simonians: eliminate the unhealthy islets and create grand arteries to bring in air and light. In Ham, he had much time to think about his projects. When he arrived in Paris in 1848, he carried in his baggage a great map of Paris.

Once elected president, he indicated the changes he wanted made: piercing long avenues, erect new buildings, create parks and green spaces. In 1853, he called upon Prefect Haussmann to whom he presented in their first interview a map of Paris crossed by differently lines of different colors determined by their priority.

One year before Haussmann's nomination, the emperor evicted thousands of Parisians (decree of the 26th of March 1852), whom he procured new housing for. The constructions were described by contemporaries as colossal: “it was no longer bands of insurgents who roamed the city, but squads of masons, of carpenters, of workers and of all sorts going about their work.” (Merruau).

Napoleon III talked often of these constructions in his council of ministers, consulting Haussmann several times each week, and going on site to see what progress had been made. Great buildings with a uniform and bourgeois aspect to them replaced unclean houses. Churches, hospitals, barracks, schools and parks saw the light of day. The emperor took pleasure in the installation of the Bois de Boulogne; not hesitating to go there early in the morning to oversee the direction of operations, grabbing a hammer and chisel to show in which manner the alleys should take form.
Gas-lighting became widely used, a sewer system was installed, and a water distribution system was developed. In twenty years, Napoleon III did more for Paris than had been done in a century.

---

Translation of an article on FdeSouche Histoire.
“Napoleon III and the modernization of France (part 1)”

Published on the 2nd of December 2012 at
http://histoire.fdesouche.com/98-napoleon-iii-et-la-modernisation-de-la-france-partie-1
as
"Napoléon III et la modernisation de la France (partie 1)"

First published on 15/06/2011

Here's a Video

I've been very busy with work recently, though thank heavens that's almost over for the holidays.
In the meantime, enjoy a nice selection of photographs of late 19th Century France. To say some people think we have it better now!

No Comment

To Algeria:

 

Bonapartists: Éric Zemmour

Éric Zemmour

A modern figure that I admire is that of Éric Zemmour, the journalist and author whose controversial opinions makes him unpopular in all the right circles. The origin of numerous polemics, his uncompromising style of debate and his right-of-center political and social views make him a rare gem in a profession known for producing endless quantities of manure.

Since Zemmour is a living person, I won't spend as much time on his biography as I did with Victor de Persigny, instead focusing on his works and his politics - since he is still capable of acting in a modern context. It would be expedient to point out that Zemmour rarely talks about his own political positions from a dogmatic perspective, that is, he talks of himself being a such-and-such or a this-and-that. I have heard him describe himself as a Gaullist and a Bonapartist, and inasmuch as I understand his ideas, those seem like accurate descriptors (he should know). But more on that later.

A younger Éric Zemmour.

Éric Zemmour was born on the last day in August, 1958, at Montreuil, in the départment of the Seine. Today his hometown is a notorious Parisian suburb, called Seine-Saint-Denis (some monarchists may recognize the name as it contains the Saint Denis cathedral, burial place of our kings and queens), or "92" for short. His parents were immigrants from Algeria, Berber Jews fleeing the Algerian War of 1954-1962, adapted their names for use in France (Roger and Lucette), and his father set up an ambulance-driving business, while young Eric was raised by his mother, his sisters, and his aunts.

Zemmour has said that being raised by women made him into a man, and appreciates his childhood. Unlike many Socialists, Zemmour can say that he grew up in the suburbs and so knows what it used to be like before the immigration waves. After graduating from the Institute of Political Studies in Paris, he twice failed the application to the National School of Administration, and instead decided to enter journalism. He began work in 1986 as a political correspondent at the Quotidien de Paris, and over the years has written for numerous publications, including Valeurs Actualles (Contemporary Morals) and Le Figaro, a major French newspaper.

Zemmour has also published a few books: political biographies of such people as Edouard Balladur and Jacques Chirac, for example, but he has also written political works. In 2006 he published "The First Sex" which criticizes feminism and the feminization of French society, and in 2008 published "Little Brother", a fiction book that attacks "messianic anti-racism" as he has called it. In 2010 he released "French Melancholy", where he revisits the history of France. The book, which I have read and greatly enjoyed (I will write  review on it at some point), won the Incorrect Book Prize (awarded to those books qualified as going against the politically correct mindset).

Mélancolie française (2010)

The journalist's presence in the media since has been a breath of fresh air to some, and an annoyance to others. To a particular group of people, he is abominable, but those are the kinds of people you want to think of you as such - notably the "well-intentioned left" as he so often calls them.

He unabashedly describes himself as a reactionary, saying once "it was better before", and oftentimes reminding the people he appears on television with that the history of France does not begin with the Revolution, that there is nearly two thousand years of history accompanying it that have shaped our national character. He credits monarchy and Catholicism with having built France, but also recognizes the usefulness of the melting of religions into a national identity and the secularist laws as being beneficial in that respect.

His life story is that of the model immigrant (though he himself was born French in France, his parents having acquired French nationality), and he emphasizes how easy it used to be when immigrants were primarily of the same ethnic, cultural, and religious background as the natives, compared to now, when integration is a nightmarish failure which has resulted and can only result in violence. Zemmour's views on immigration, integration, and the role of ethnicity have greatly shaped my own, and I consider him a sort of "ideological" mentor, though neither him nor I subscribe to any particular "ideology", unless that ideology is France. His political positions, however, and as I have alluded to above, are, in my eyes, mostly beyond reproach - anti-Feminism, opposition to the fetishization of human rights, against the "gay culture", anti-liberal (economic, political, or social), and therefore pro-Patriarchy, pro-natural law, pro-"heteronormativity" (to use their term for normality) and pro-collectivist nationhood.

After having been a panelist on the literary-review and interview show "On n'est pas couché" ("We are not asleep"), Zemmour left with his co-panelist Éric Nalleau (together they were called "les Zérics") to found a more serious-style interview show, "Zemmour & Naulleau". Zemmour also has a  daily radio show on the RTL network and has a weekly debate with Nicolas Domenech on "Ca ce dispute" ("It is being argued"), where I have to say, he is often exasperated at his left-wing colleague's inability to see reason.

I would say most French nationalists appreciate Zemmour's no-nonsense, fact-supported and passionate defense of France and her values, political, cultural, or otherwise. I know some, largely of the legitimist or skinhead traditions, take issue with him being a Berber Jew, but they are not seeing the big picture, nor do they seem to properly understand what it means to become French - it is not solely a matter of religion or ethnicity.

Opening sequence to Zemmour & Naulleau.

Note: I realize my profiles aren't exactly stunning, but one day, in a mythical future where I am capable of focus, I may return to the, and edit them for further clarity.

No Comment

Except this brief note - Since I have a considerable workload on my own end of things, in the interest of making more posts, I'll provide some interesting pictures, as often as I find them, concerning current events in France, or historical ones, with no additional commentary. One knows the expression concerning what a picture is worth...

A Power Metal Tribute to Napoleon III

Music:

• "Carolus Rex" by Sabaton.

Film Clips (and Napoleons):

• Admiral Nakhimov, 1946 (Aleksandr Khokhlov)
• Die Deutschen - Episode 9, 2008 (Radu Banzaru)
  
• Edward the Seventh - Episode 2, 1975 (Julian Sherrier)
• Henry Dunant: Red on the Cross, 2006 (Tom Novembre) 
• Juarez, 1939 (Claude Rains)
• Man to Men, 1948 (Jean Debucourt)
• Sisi - Episode 1, 2009 (Erwin Steinhauer)
• The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer - Episode 4, 1998 (Nick Jameson)
• The Song of Bernadette, 1943 (Jerome Cowan)
• The Story of Louis Pasteur, 1936 (Walter Kingsford)