The Directorate: Draft Thread

Ian the Admin said:
December 17, 1793: In the middle of the French Revolution, Royalist forces have retaken the city of Toulon and called in British and foreign troops. At the end of a months-long siege, French forces retake Toulon in the middle of the night. The following morning the architect of their victory, artillery commander Napoleon Bonaparte, lies dead from a British bayonet.


November 1794: The Jay Treaty is signed by the US and Great Britain, laying a foundation for the future strengthening of diplomatic and trading ties between the two nations.

March 5, 1795: With the signing of the Peace of Basle, France ends hostilities with Prussia and Spain.

June 8, 1795: On the death of Louis XVII, the 10-year-old pretender to the throne of France, the child’s uncle issued a proclamation declaring himself Louis XVIII, and announcing his intention to restore the Old Regime and punish all involved in the Revolution back to 1789.

September 1795: Deputies of the French National Convention draft a new constitution which called for a bicameral legislature, supported property rights, and excluded the masses from political power. Executive power was to be placed in the hands of the Directory, consisting of five people elected by the legislature. A referendum was held to approve the new constitution, and the electoral assemblies voted favourably. In the days before the constitution was to come into effect, a coalition of deputies - determined to protect their position of power - forced through a law which stated that two thirds of the new government had to have been former members of the Convention.

October 5, 1795: The conservatives and moderates amongst the French people were far from impressed by this display of political opportunism by the deputies, and - with covert support from the British - mounted a rebellion against the Convention. Without the actions of Bonaparte, this constitutionalist-royalist onslaught leaves the republican defenders decimated, with fatalities including Guillaume Brune, Paul Barras and Joachim Murat. As the existing Convention is forcibly dissolved by the National Guard, existing plans for the reform of state apparatus are banished to the dustbin of history.

October 1795: With the National Convention dissolved, it quickly becomes clear that the rightist rebels and National Guard lack the expertise to maintain stability, and - after a brief but intense power struggle - the two largest remaining factions agree to invite General Jean-Charles Pichegru to act as 'gardien'. Pichegru is initially reluctant, having been on the verge of offering his resignation to the government, his plot for the return and crowning of Louis XVIII having been uncovered but a matter of weeks before. Eventually, having come to the realisation that France is, once again, teetering on the verge of a collapse into violence and anarchy, he relents. One of his first actions is the successful and rapid negotiation of a cease-fire with Great Britain, in a move which significantly boosts his popularity amongst the French people. In the US, however, this cease-fire is far less popular. There is much commentary in the US press as to how the cease-fire could be seen as an outright violation of the tenets of the 1778 Franco-American Alliance, which stipulated that neither America nor France would conclude treaties with other nations unless diplomats from both countries were in attendance. This popular sentiment radicalises many US senators, who call on the Washington administration to hold France to account. Initial attempts by the US to establish a dialogue are rebuffed by Pichegru, who claims to lack the legitimacy needed to engage in formal negotiations with foreign powers. The American diplomats cite the British cease-fire as a counter-example, but the French claim that this agreement was necessary, and emphasise the fact that it was not to be taken as a formal peace treaty. The US makes vague noises of discontent, but takes no further action.

November 1795: Under Pichegru's watchful gaze, many enemies of the former regime begin to return to France, and the initial stages of the drafting of a new constitution begins, with the specifics of the proposed French Directorate showing more of a commitment to the ideals of constitutional monarchy and the 1793 constitution (popular sovereignty, liberty, unicameralism, manhood suffrage, egalitarianism), as informed by the writings of Montesquieu, than to those of the National Convention. Attempts by opponents of the new constitution to destabilise Pichegru's rule by spreading rumours of foul play, casting 'le gardien' as little more than a British puppet, prove ultimately ineffectual as an increasingly war-weary French populace welcome the prospect of a return to stability.

December 1795: The first elections for the French Directorate clearly reflect the sentiments of the country, returning a narrow majority of moderates, constitutionalists, and those on the political right; a few royalists; and the remainder a mass of squabbling revolutionaries and leftists. The more moderate constitutionalist directuers end up relying on the support of several monarchists in order to ensure the selection of an executive council that was to their liking as a faction. In return for their support, the new executive agrees to dispatch an emissary to 'King' Louis XVIII in order to discuss the potential for his return to France as constitutional monarch. The dialogue proves fruitless, as it rapidly becomes clear that he is utterly unwilling to compromise. Despite this rebuff, morale remains high, as hostilities between the French and British are finally ended with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris by the new French Directorate. In the aftermath of ratification, the Kingdom of Great Britain extends formal recognition to the French Directorate.

-----

My questions:

- Do Pichelgru's actions as 'gardien' seem realistic?
- Which notable figures from OTL, if any, could end up in the First French Directorate, either in the legislature or even the executive? If there are any, would it be permissable for me to use a fictional character who supposedly may have remained in obscurity in OTL?

- Any other comments / ideas?
 
What about Sieyès?

I suppose he'd make more sense in the role I've attributed to Pichegru, what with him resenting the constitution of 1795. In which case, I'd have to make the constitution of the Directorate a tad more conservative. Would seem to make sense though...

Cheers for mentioning him. :)
 
November 1794: The Jay Treaty is signed by the US and Great Britain, laying a foundation for the future strengthening of diplomatic and trading ties between the two nations.

October 1795: ... In the US, however, this cease-fire is far less popular. There is much commentary in the US press as to how the cease-fire could be seen as an outright violation of the tenets of the 1778 Franco-American Alliance, which stipulated that neither America nor France would conclude treaties with other nations unless diplomats from both countries were in attendance. This popular sentiment radicalises many US senators, who call on the Washington administration to hold France to account. Initial attempts by the US to establish a dialogue are rebuffed by Pichegru, who claims to lack the legitimacy needed to engage in formal negotiations with foreign powers. The American diplomats cite the British cease-fire as a counter-example, but the French claim that this agreement was necessary, and emphasise the fact that it was not to be taken as a formal peace treaty. The US makes vague noises of discontent, but takes no further action.

Am I mistaken or aren't these two entries in contradiction? Has something been omitted from the November 1794 entry?
 
Well, yes. :)

As in OTL, it's been *signed*, but it hasn't yet been ratified by the US government and, as such, hasn't actually come into effect. The French have more pressing concerns (they'll notice later, though), and the Americans have failed to connect the two events mentally. So, hypocricy for all!
 
In the US, however, this cease-fire is far less popular. There is much commentary in the US press as to how the cease-fire could be seen as an outright violation of the tenets of the 1778 Franco-American Alliance, which stipulated that neither America nor France would conclude treaties with other nations unless diplomats from both countries were in attendance. This popular sentiment radicalises many US senators, who call on the Washington administration to hold France to account. Initial attempts by the US to establish a dialogue are rebuffed by Pichegru, who claims to lack the legitimacy needed to engage in formal negotiations with foreign powers. The American diplomats cite the British cease-fire as a counter-example, but the French claim that this agreement was necessary, and emphasise the fact that it was not to be taken as a formal peace treaty. The US makes vague noises of discontent, but takes no further action.

I dont get this. :eek:

Why would the French-British cease fire upset the US?

If it is because France have "broken" the 1778 alliance, US themselfes have just done the same thing by the Jay treaty.

I would rather think the French have more reason to be upset, cause the Jay treaty sertainly is more comprehensive that a mere cease fire :confused:
 
I dont get this. :eek:

Why would the French-British cease fire upset the US?

If it is because France have "broken" the 1778 alliance, US themselfes have just done the same thing by the Jay treaty.

I would rather think the French have more reason to be upset, cause the Jay treaty sertainly is more comprehensive that a mere cease fire :confused:

Hang on, I'm working on it. :)

At this time is would be incorrect to think of the US in realist terms, i.e. as a single, atomistic state. From the reading I am doing at the moment, it would seem as though sentiments within the US are very much divided between the pro-English Federalists led by Washington (who liked the Jay Treaty) and the pro-French Jeffersonian Republicans (who didn't).

The Federalists within Senate "broke" the 1788 alliance with the ratification of the unpopular Jay Treaty, for which they were berated by the Republicans and the wider US populace.

The French didn't particularly care, as they were too busy dealing with the domestic issues presented by the Thermidorian Reaction and its aftermath.

So, instead of formal negotiations between the Washington administration and the interim executive of Sieyes (instead of Pichelgru, who I had originally placed in the position of 'le gardien', I might have the Jeffersonian Republicians attempt (covertly, of course) to pursue relations with the new French administration.

Does that seem more realistic?
 
Neighter do I.
A treaty is much more demanding by the parties than a cease-fire. If the US and British are going to improve diplomatic relations, that seems a bit more disturbing than a pause in fighting???:rolleyes:
 
Why does Britain agree to a ceasefire? What does it get out of it?

I'm working on the fact that the war with France was extremely expensive, and the British Government was well aware that this was straining Britain's finances.

Plus, there is some evidence that British intelligence may have had a role to play in funding of the events of October 1795, in pursuit of peace. The British wanted the end of the National Convention, and felt that this was the most cost-efficient way of increasing the probability of reviving the French monarchy, even if it was to be constitutional. Of course, in this timeline, they failed to predict the outcome of the subsequent power struggle, Sieyes' support for the 1793 constitution, and the sheer bloody-mindedness of Louis XVIII. Even so, the British are willing to sue for peace, as it appears that France has reached a point where it's keen to limit foreign intervention, and focus on its own stability.

Of course, that's not taking the US situation (which I am currently reading up on) into account.
 
Take 2

And, here's the edited version.

Ian the Admin said:
December 17, 1793: In the middle of the French Revolution, Royalist forces have retaken the city of Toulon and called in British and foreign troops. At the end of a months-long siege, French forces retake Toulon in the middle of the night. The following morning the architect of their victory, artillery commander Napoleon Bonaparte, lies dead from a British bayonet.

November 1794: The Jay Treaty is signed by the US and Great Britain, laying a foundation for the future strengthening of diplomatic and trading ties between the two nations. It does, however, still need to be ratified by the US Senate and the British Parliament before it comes into effect.

March 5, 1795: With the signing of the Peace of Basle, France ends hostilities with Prussia and Spain.

May 16, 1795: The Batavian and French republics sign the treaty of Den Haag, forming a defensive alliance. The Batavian Republic cedes Dutch Flanders, Maastrict and Venlo to France.

June 8, 1795: On the death of Louis XVII, the 10-year-old pretender to the throne of France, the child’s uncle issued a proclamation declaring himself Louis XVIII, and announcing his intention to restore the Old Regime and punish all involved in the Revolution back to 1789.

June 1795: Washington submits the Jay Treaty to Senate for ratification. The specifics of the treaty prove contentious, however, and ratification is quickly bogged down by argument and dissent. The Jeffersonian Republicans see the treaty as embodying the views and ideals of Washington's Federalists, and decry it as unrepresentative of US opinion. Furthermore, they argue that the 1788 Franco-American Alliance is still in effect, and that the ratification of the Jay Treaty would breach the terms of the 1788 Treaty, potentially leading to a rapid degeneration in diplomatic relations with France. The strength of their opposition of the ratification of the treaty causes Jefferson's supporters to - in the words of Chambers - coordinate "activity between leaders at the capital, and leaders, actives and popular followings in the states, counties and towns."

September 1795: Deputies of the French National Convention draft a new constitution which called for a bicameral legislature, supported property rights, and excluded the masses from political power. Executive power was to be placed in the hands of the Directory, consisting of five people elected by the legislature. A referendum was held to approve the new constitution, and the electoral assemblies voted favourably. In the days before the constitution was to come into effect, a coalition of deputies - determined to protect their position of power - forced through a law which stated that two thirds of the new government had to have been former members of the Convention.

October 5, 1795: The conservatives and moderates amongst the French people were far from impressed by this display of political opportunism by the deputies, and - with covert support from the British - mounted a rebellion against the Convention. Without the actions of Bonaparte, this constitutionalist-royalist onslaught leaves the republican defenders decimated, with fatalities including Guillaume Brune, Paul Barras and Joachim Murat. As the existing Convention is forcibly dissolved by the National Guard, existing plans for the reform of state apparatus are banished to the dustbin of history.

October 1795: With the National Convention dissolved, it quickly becomes clear that the rightist rebels and National Guard lack the expertise to maintain stability, and - after a brief but intense power struggle - the two largest remaining factions negotiate a compromise, whereby Emmanuel Sieyes - a vocal critic of the 1795 constitution - is invited to act as 'le gardien' until a new constitution can be put into effect. One of his first actions is the successful and rapid negotiation of a cease-fire with Great Britain, in a move which significantly boosts his popularity amongst the French people. To the nascent US Democratic-Republican faction, however, this move is seen as something of a betrayal. Aiming to forge a link with the new French administration, James Monroe - the US Minister Plenipotentiary to France - approaches Sieyes in an attempt to gain transnational support for Jefferson and his allies. Sieyes appears broadly supportive of Monroe's cause but, citing his role as 'le gardien', claims to lack the legitimacy needed to engage in formal negotiations.

November 1795: Under Sieyes' watchful gaze, many enemies of the former regime begin to return to France, and the initial stages of the drafting of a new constitution begins, with the specifics of the proposed French Directorate showing more of a commitment to the ideals of the 1793 constitution (popular sovereignty, liberty, unicameralism, egalitarianism) and the writings of Montesquieu, than to those of the National Convention. Attempts by opponents of the new constitution to destabilise his rule by spreading rumours of foul play, casting 'le gardien' as little more than a British puppet, prove ultimately ineffectual as an increasingly war-weary French populace welcome the prospect of a return to stability.

December 1795: The first elections for the French Directorate clearly reflect the sentiments of the country, returning a narrow majority of moderates, constitutionalists, and those on the right; a few royalists; and a mass of squabbling revolutionaries and leftists. The more moderate constitutionalist directuers end up relying on the support of a loose grouping of monarchists to ensure the selection of an executive council that meets with their approval. In return for their support, the new executive (which includes Pichegru and Sieyes) accepts to the condition of dispatching an emissary to 'King' Louis XVIII. Initially attempts to convince him to return to France as constitutional monarch prove fruitless, however, as it rapidly becomes clear that he is unwilling to compromise. Despite this rebuff, morale in the Directorate remains high, as hostilities between the French and British are finally ended with the ratification of the Treaty of Paris by the new French Directorate. In the aftermath of ratification, the Kingdom of Great Britain extends formal recognition to the French Directorate.

January 1796: Following in the footsteps of its future ally, and subtley influenced by the Machiavellian manouvring of Jefferson, Washington dispatches a delegation to the new French Directorate to discuss future terms of trade. For Washington and the Federalists this is little more than an attempt to keep France sweet but - without the knowledge of the official delegation - Monroe takes the opportunity to attend a secret meeting with the French executive. Initial negotiations drives a wedge between two factions in the French executive. One group, citing the 1793 constitution, claim that France should attempt to maintain neutrality and isolationism, whilst the other believe that they should offer whatever support they can to Jefferson and his allies in defeating the Jay Treaty and pushing a Francophilic foreign policy agenda.

-----

My questions:

- What should I call the French executive?
- What decision do you think they will make with regard to Monroe's proposition?
- Any 'reality checks', comments or ideas?
 
I suppose he'd make more sense in the role I've attributed to Pichegru, what with him resenting the constitution of 1795. In which case, I'd have to make the constitution of the Directorate a tad more conservative. Would seem to make sense though...

Cheers for mentioning him. :)
What about other major players that brought the demise to the Directorateand into the Consulate? There were stunch Republicians in that group that happened to get shafted when Napoleon became Emporer, and then again under Royalist Forces, such as Marshall Brune.

I'll have more questions as soon as I go and get that Oversized, plus one-thoasand page book on the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars. With Napoleon gone there is a huge power gap in France and there are things that were in effect that would probably continue, and others that likely are unable to stop despite Nappy not being there, and a few that won't happen altogther. I'll question who you put in power, and the reasons behind it.

Why? Because this area needs to be closely scrutinised. This is one of those years in which everything, and I mean everything changed. ITs also one of the best documented eras ever. I want this to be better then Civil War and War World Two timelines have to be here.

But don't be afraid to use the cause for entertainment purposes. This flies with me every step of the way.:D The Cool Factor must not be ignored.
 
I'll have more questions as soon as I go and get that Oversized, plus one-thoasand page book on the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars.

*quakes*

I'm not sure that even my university subscription to JSTOR will be able to trump a book of more than a thousand pages. :rolleyes:

Basically. this POD does look fascinating, but to do it justice might take (a) several years, and (b) all of my time. I'll try to get to 1800 by this January, but I can't promise anything.

And this definitely isn't going to be Directorate-wank. Without Napoleon, Brune's rise is going to be different, and I think that the Directorate might even be prepared, after a couple of minor military setbacks, to make peace with the remaining players of the First Coalition at significant cost to France. But, even so, the new Directorate is going to have more enemies that you can throw a big stick at.
 
Last edited:
*quakes*

I'm not sure that even my university subscription to JSTOR will be able to trump a book of more than a thousand pages. :rolleyes:

Basically. this POD does look fascinating, but to do it justice might take (a) several years, and (b) all of my time. I'll try to get to 1800 by this January, but I can't promise anything.
Its basically a picture book, with newspaper form articles on events.:D Don't worry. I'm also fasinated by this POD, and usually by your writing, so put them togther and you have an instant fan. I always love reading about the revolutionary era.

You might look at the possiblity of working backwards. (In otherwords decide what you want in the future and go back from those events in the past until you have justified them through events that happened through this POD) Might help to have a clear goal and all as such a well chronologised era is hard to depart from as you will often get bogged in the details.

I'll give you time to write, and then mid-Jan I'll make you justify your reasons. For now I'm stuck with wikipedia and whatever I can find at the local libary tells me.:D
 
Last edited:
I'll give you time to write, and then mid-Jan I'll make you justify your reasons. For now your stuck with wikipedia and whatever I can find at the local libary tells me.:D

Actually, I'm not. :D

Justin Pickard said:
even my university subscription to JSTOR

Can you say access to practically every academic journal ever until I leave uni in the summer of 2008? :rolleyes:

It's just that if I know people are going to be treating this seriously, I'm going to have to treat this with a bit more rigour and possibly even footnotes. :eek:
 
And this definitely isn't going to be Directorate-wank. Without Napoleon, Brune's rise is going to be different, and I think that the Directorate might even be prepared, after a couple of minor military setbacks, to make peace with the remaining players of the First Coalition at significant cost to France. But, even so, the new Directorate is going to have more enemies that you can throw a big stick at.
I don't mind if it is Directorate-wank, at least for a while. One of my chief complaints in those maps and POD that inspired you is that it stayed the bloody Directorate! France is one those countries that had its ups and downs, and thats part of the charm of its history. Alls I ask for every down you put in, you give it an up, and vice versa. Let its goverment change. Lets see Bourbons get back into power once or twice till 1930. Let'see Orleanist type mentalitity if France gets beat. Heck let France stagenate and then be rejuventated by a Communist revolution! I don't care as well as its well written and the periods of Franco-Distopia or Franco-Utopia even out.

I also don't see how you can get more enemies than Napoleon did...

Peace on, Peace off, Its the Napoleonic Wars!
(Done to the tune of the Clapper)
 
Top