AHC: Civil War in a Surviving Second French Empire

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
The challenge is to create the conditions for a civil war in a surviving Second French Empire. By surviving, I mean the civil war must be after 1870 (preferably in the 20th century) and there must be a POD involving the survival of the Second French Empire. Explain who the combatant sides would be ideologically, what would be the main issues they would be fighting over, what their goals would be, and where the geographical bastions of support would be. Points for creativity.
 
I can't figure out.

France was the most unified country of Europe. It had male universal suffrage.

There was still, to some extent, disagreement on the nature of the head of State, but in 1870 France had started its last step towards parliamentary democracy.

Religion was not enough to start a civil war.

It is much harder to have a civil war when you have universal suffrage, unless you have a very deep divide in the country : austrians against hungarians or czech, catholics against protestant or muslims against orthodox, pro-slavery against abolitionists, ... etc.
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
I can't figure out.

France was the most unified country of Europe. It had male universal suffrage.

There was still, to some extent, disagreement on the nature of the head of State, but in 1870 France had started its last step towards parliamentary democracy.

Religion was not enough to start a civil war.

It is much harder to have a civil war when you have universal suffrage, unless you have a very deep divide in the country : austrians against hungarians or czech, catholics against protestant or muslims against orthodox, pro-slavery against abolitionists, ... etc.

The universal suffage part isn't necessarily the case in a continued Second Empire though (I didnt specify a POD, so the option is still open). There was universal male suffrage for the Legislative Body, but it originally didn't have the power to propose laws or do much else really.
 
There was universal male suffrage not only for the election of the legislative body. But there was also universal male suffrage for plebiscites.

What you have to take into account is the fact that when he made his coup in december 1851, Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte made it on the pretext of reestablishing full male universal suffrage, which had been established in 1848 but which the parliament had restricted on its own initiative.

There is a specificity in France of defiance against the parliament : that's why direct universal suffrage is still perceived as more legitimate than the vote of MP's. It is still the case in the 5th republic's constitution with a large part given to referendum.

Sorry to insist, but in France, either the power had a strong enough legitimacy, or it was upset by riots. Napoleon III had a very strong legitimacy before he screwed everything up by declaring war on Prussia and losing it. In July 1870, he had organized and won by an enormous majority a plebiscite on the liberalization of the regime.
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
^So none of the Communards, Republicans, Orleanists, Legitimists, or just generic wouldbe coupsters had the potential to ignite a civil war? I'm a little surprised at this perspective, given the reputation of French politics in this period. Or is it that the opposition to the Bonapartists would be satisfied or too fractious and divided to be a serious threat?
 
Last edited:
^So none of the Communards, Orleanists, Legitimists, or just generic wouldbe coupsters had the potential to ignite a civil war? I'm a little surprised at this perspective, given the reputation of French politics in this period. Or is it that the opposition to the Bonapartists would be satisfied or too fractious and divided to be a serious threat?

To fractious. In all honesty the opposition groups were too different to fully unite against the Empire and even if they did, what then? How much of the army will support the Opposition and how much will support the Emperor? The only real threat I can think of would maybe, maybe mind U, be a coup from either Republicans or Communists, like the Paris Commune. I don't think the Monarchists had the military support to challenge the government in that way.
 
^So none of the Communards, Republicans, Orleanists, Legitimists, or just generic wouldbe coupsters had the potential to ignite a civil war? I'm a little surprised at this perspective, given the reputation of French politics in this period. Or is it that the opposition to the Bonapartists would be satisfied or too fractious and divided to be a serious threat?

To ignite a civil war, you need to have big enough groups who have a kind a vital conflict with one another. When I say big enough, it means that it needs people ready to take up weapons and to form some kind of an army or a strong militia, to be able to control a significant part of the territory and its ressources, in order to fight the other.

There was no such cause and no such people in France in 1870.

The orleanists ? They were mainly moderate notables. They wanted some kind of moderate parliamentary monarchy, but a rather oligarchical one. They were the incarnation of oligarchical government. No significant part of the population would have followed them in a coup against a government established on the triumph of universal suffrage. Who would fight to have in order to have an Orleans prince on the throne of an oligarchical and business-friendly monarchy (Napoleon was business-friendly too) ?

Same for the legitimists.

The communards ? But they were mainly a parisian phenomenon, and they went to such extremities only because of the war and the terrible siege Paris went through. And in 1871, monarchists and moderate republicains (the vast majority of republicans) made an alliance in order to crush these communards because they hated these "reds" and because they represented the provinces which wanted to put an end, once and for all, to the city of Paris' claim to decide for the whole wountry.

For the republicans, it's quite different. They had good results in the elections and had some electoral strongholds, especially in big cities. But they were only a minority, and the imperial regime was popular.

To have a possible civil war, you need to ignite it not in 1870 but in 1851, when president Bonaparte made his coup. At that time, there were real fights, with touhsands of dead. Several military units refused to obey the leaders of the coup and tried to resist. A that time, if you have a few events turn badly for Bonaparte, then you can have a civil war. But it will remain very difficult because in 1848, Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte was elected president with 74% of the national vote (universal suffrage for the first time) in the first round. He was very very popular, not because of his qualities but because of his name : it was the only name known nationally and it was even the most famous name in the whole western world.
 
I think that the only possibility for a civil war in France (which would be short and brutal, the state is too small for a long civil war) under a surviving 2nd empire is something like a crossbreed between the october revolution and the Paris Commune. You need a strong socialist movement (which swallow most of the republicans for bonus) to develop between 1870 and the early 20th century then a big war that France loose badly. In the wake of defeat, Communist revolution, and civil war.
 
I still can't figure out how.

Contrary to Russia in 1917 or 1911 or 1905, France was the State in which there was no ground for a proletarian revolution.

Il had already had its egalitarian revolution in 1789. The nobility had lost its economic and political dominance. The land was massively held by the peasants, which was a bad thing for industrial development since many people prefered to stay on a small land property than go for the town. France had a much smaller industrial output and a much smaller part of its working population in the industry than other northern european countries (UK, Belgium, Germany). Because of this situation, the socialist movement in France was never dominant as it could be in other countries. There was no alliance in France between the trade unions and the socialist party, contrary to what occured in Germany or in the UK with the Labour party.

You had to wait the 1930's to have the socialist party becoming the number one party of the Left.

The success of the proletarian revolution was based on the changing side of the russian army in the very specific russian context. The french army was made of rather monarchic or republican people, but most of them politically leant to the right. In no case would you find any communist friendly guy in the army.
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
This was an interesting thread, but it was about the Republic. Also, what you've argued seems to indicate that a right-wing coup wouldn't find many supporters and the rest of the army could massacre them in short order.
 
I still can't figure out how.

Contrary to Russia in 1917 or 1911 or 1905, France was the State in which there was no ground for a proletarian revolution.

Il had already had its egalitarian revolution in 1789. The nobility had lost its economic and political dominance. The land was massively held by the peasants, which was a bad thing for industrial development since many people prefered to stay on a small land property than go for the town. France had a much smaller industrial output and a much smaller part of its working population in the industry than other northern european countries (UK, Belgium, Germany). Because of this situation, the socialist movement in France was never dominant as it could be in other countries. There was no alliance in France between the trade unions and the socialist party, contrary to what occured in Germany or in the UK with the Labour party.

You had to wait the 1930's to have the socialist party becoming the number one party of the Left.

Except you are taking as a reference the third republic which was a very stable regime, while with a second Empire you won't have that much people willingly supporting it. Because the second empire wasn't a democracy or else the German Empire was a democracy too.

The lack of a strong socialist party is mostly due to the existance of the republic as it permitted strong republican parties on the right, and also because the republic actually authorized trade unions in the late 19th century. I'm not sure that an Empire would authorize it. So the people who were republicans in OTL could be more radicalized then.

Oh and of course, you don't really need an absolute majority of socialists to have a revolution. As for example the majority of the population in 1789
wasn't revolutionnary.

The success of the proletarian revolution was based on the changing side of the russian army in the very specific russian context. The french army was made of rather monarchic or republican people, but most of them politically leant to the right. In no case would you find any communist friendly guy in the army.

The French army in a WWI type war wouldn't be composed of monarchist or republicans. It would be composed of people like the people outside the army, probably more radicalized.
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
I also wonder what Boulanger would be doing in such a TL, since his backers included Bonapartists and, to a lesser extent, Orleanists OTL. The bulk of his popular support just seems to have come from right-wing Republicans (including Paul Déroulède, the protagonist of the events in the previous link I posted, and his League of Patriots) and of course a majority of Parisians elected him. It seems like his real ambition was to lead himself, so he perhaps would have just sought to unify different opposition groups in a different situation. His movement is now considered by some to have been somewhat leftist, with his supporters swinging to the right during the Dreyfus Affair.
 
Except you are taking as a reference the third republic which was a very stable regime, while with a second Empire you won't have that much people willingly supporting it. Because the second empire wasn't a democracy or else the German Empire was a democracy too.

The lack of a strong socialist party is mostly due to the existance of the republic as it permitted strong republican parties on the right, and also because the republic actually authorized trade unions in the late 19th century. I'm not sure that an Empire would authorize it. So the people who were republicans in OTL could be more radicalized then.

Oh and of course, you don't really need an absolute majority of socialists to have a revolution. As for example the majority of the population in 1789
wasn't revolutionnary.



The French army in a WWI type war wouldn't be composed of monarchist or republicans. It would be composed of people like the people outside the army, probably more radicalized.

I don't understand why you think an imperial regime would not have as much support as a republic. For 80% of the french, the main point was about freedom, democracy and order, not republic or monarchy. France also had experienced a republic that was all but a democracy from 1792 to 1804 : it was violent, bloody, unfair, war-monger and corrupt to a point never-seen in french history. And that was why many many people had a strong reluctance to republican regime. The republic succeeded in taking root after 1870 partly by chance, and mainly because it was a moderate and conservative one. The republic was the offsrping of a compromise between orleanist monarchists and republicans. Both had equal forces and the orleanists prefered an alliance for a liberal democracy with the republicans to an alliance with the legitimist monarchists who could not agree on a liberal and democratic regime.

Do you know when it when workers' association and strike ceased to be a crime in the french legislation ? In 1864. Napoleon III had a real personal interest in Labour matters.

The big difference between 1789 and 1889 or 1909 is that one century after 1789 the communications and transports were much more developed. So the government could react more quickly and much more efficiently.
And also, one century after 1789, everybody in France knew that something like 1789/1794 could happen (because it did). That's one of the reasons why the vast majority of the country decided to crush in a bloodbath the commune of Paris in 1871 : the moderates (including a majority the people who leant to the left) did not want such a chaos to happen again, did not want the parisian mob to dictate its rule on the national government, did not want violent anarchists or reds from Paris to rule the whole country.

If it were a WWI type war, the point for the troops in the army was not about defending monarchy or republic. It was to defend the country.
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
Do you know when it when workers' association and strike ceased to be a crime in the french legislation ? In 1864. Napoleon III had a real personal interest in Labour matters.

But the first time trade union structures were expressly legalised and formalised, and the first labour laws, were Waldeck-Rousseau's in 1884. Napoleon III was prone to radically changing his course of action, and not just due to changes in his interests, and we don't have a good idea of his son's disposition.
 
The only groups seriously dedicated to opposing the imperial order, the monarchists and the republicans, hated each other more than they did the Bonapartists, and by 1870 both had strong factions that either had or were beginning to accept the empire.

You're going to need a POD much further back, probably back to at least the 1850s to do this.
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
The only groups seriously dedicated to opposing the imperial order, the monarchists and the republicans, hated each other more than they did the Bonapartists, and by 1870 both had strong factions that either had or were beginning to accept the empire.

You're going to need a POD much further back, probably back to at least the 1850s to do this.

Any ideas on what such a POD might be?
 
Would the Empire survive that though? Had succession even been formalised?

At the time of the 1855 assassination attempt the heir was Louis-Napoléon's cousin Plon-Plon, and a civil war would have been the least of the the imperialists' worries, considering the Crimean War is in full swing.

By 1858 though the war is over, the empire has been established internationally and domestically, and the heir is young prince Napoléon. If the '58 assassin is successful the empire would pass to a regency under Empress Eugénie. The greater threat here is creeping monarchist influence taking the opportunity to firmly entrench itself.
 
Top