Effect of the Polish May Constituation of 1791?

Okay so this constitution was adopted just a few years after the US constitution. Historically this caused Poland to be partitioned. I'm not asking for ways that this doesn't happen. What I am wondering is what effect the May Constitution would have had on Poland if its neighbors did not react at all?

The aim of this question isn't to assume a plausible general outcome, it's to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the Polish May Constitution and effects it might have, especially in comparison to British and American systems of the period.
 
Well, the May Constitution attempts to avert the affects of serfdom without actually abolishing serfdom; this is going to cause conflict down the road. If comparing to the US serfdom for Poland could be what slavery is for America ITTL. I don't think things will come to ahead too soon as the nobles are the ones instituting this Constitution, but if Poland isn't Partitioned then I see no reason why she wouldn't survive past the Napoleonic period and until the 1848 revolutions; at which point she'll have to abolish serfdom like OTL Austria, or purge the revolutionaries and face a larger one later like OTL Russia.

I'm not sure about the shared power of the executive. It seems to be some sort of merge between the Swiss model and British model; i.e. acts of the King required the countersignature of the respective minister, and like the British the respective minister is responsible for the King's actions (e.g. the King can do no wrong), however the King does take an active role in government and can vote in the (Straż Praw) executive council. This seems like it would either work unexpectedly or fail splendidly.

Also the Constitution stipulates (in the Constitutional text!) then when current King Stanisław August Poniatowski dies the throne would pass to Frederick Augustus I, Elector of Saxony and the House of Wettin would de jure be the royal house of Poland. I'm just wondering how 'Polish' Frederick Augustus would be while King of Poland concurrently with Elector (and later) King of Saxony. Looking at Frederick Augustus' life IOTL it seems like even when he was the Duke of Warsaw he was far more concerned with his Saxon holdings than his Polish ones. So ITTL this could go several ways. Off the top of my head either Frederick Augustus is 'King' of Poland but in actuality the Sejm runs the country and everything works out as best as can be expected, with the Marshal of the Sejm largely taking over the King's role in a British sense (the Marshal being unable to vote in the Straż Praw), or the Polish people and eventually the Sejm tire of their 'King' turning his back on them and conflict ensues; which in and of itself could go several ways as well.

Another potential problem I see that the Constitutional text strictly outlaws confederations and confederated Sejms; I'm not sure about the intent of the language of the bill, but if I'm reading it correctly it would appear to outlaw political parties; this could be a huge issue.

One of the largest problems within the Constitution is that the text itself limits amendments to being made once every twenty-five years. The text itself states;
"Preventing on one hand abrupt and frequent changes of the national constitution, and on the other recognizing the need to perfect it after experiencing its effects upon the public weal, we fix a season and time for revision and amendment of the Constitution every twenty-five years. We desire that such a constitutional sejm be extraordinary in accordance with the provisions of a separate law."
This to me seems to imply that the Constitution is only 'open' to amendments at 25-yr periods, in which a special committee will debate changes to the body of the text. This is going to severely curtail efforts in a variety of fields. Imagine if the 14th and 15th amendment to the US couldn't be even debated until 1890 because the timing of the 13th. Also, expect some hi-jinks on the behalf of the elites/conservatives during this amendment period to only allow the smallest amount of and least radical amendments to be discussed. That serfdom issue is starting to look a lot worse now.

But really the big issue is that the May Constitution is to the US what the Articles of Confederation were, and then plus some.In addition to the Constitution there's also the Free Royal Cities Act (April 18, 1791), the Declaration of the Assembled Estates (May 5, 1791) and the Reciprocal Guarantee of Two Nations (October 22, 1791) which are all considered 'Constitutional' texts during Poland's reform process. The Constitution itself was reformed, fleshed and in general tinkered with in a number of ways between May and June of 1791 by the Sejmiks (regional parliaments), regional courts, the Straż Praw, the national police commission (a 'Justice' Ministry of the Straż Praw), and the municipal administration of Warsaw. Even one of the primary authors, Hugo Kołłątaj, admitted it was a work-in-progress, even stating that work was underway on "an economic constitution... guaranteeing all rights of property [and] securing protection and honor to all manner of labor." He also stated that a 'moral constitution' was also being debated, along the lines of the American Bill of Rights and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by wolf-brother
I'm just wondering how 'Polish' Frederick Augustus would be while King of Poland concurrently with Elector (and later) King of Saxony. Looking at Frederick Augustus' life IOTL it seems like even when he was the Duke of Warsaw he was far more concerned with his Saxon holdings than his Polish ones.

Notice, that without 2nd and 3rd partition PLC is much bigger than Duchy of Warsaw (and Saxony too). Therefore it requires more attention, but also is much more important to a ruler of 2 countries. Personally I think that sooner or later (rather sooner) Wettin dynasty would split into "Saxon" and "Polish" branches.

Off the top of my head either Frederick Augustus is 'King' of Poland but in actuality the Sejm runs the country and everything works out as best as can be expected, with the Marshal of the Sejm largely taking over the King's role in a British sense (the Marshal being unable to vote in the Straż Praw), or the Polish people and eventually the Sejm tire of their 'King' turning his back on them and conflict ensues; which in and of itself could go several ways as well.

Personally I would prefer the British solution, with the King as uniting symbol and Marshal of the Sejm as Polish equivalent of Prime Minister.

One of the largest problems within the Constitution is that the text itself limits amendments to being made once every twenty-five years. The text itself states;
"Preventing on one hand abrupt and frequent changes of the national constitution, and on the other recognizing the need to perfect it after experiencing its effects upon the public weal, we fix a season and time for revision and amendment of the Constitution every twenty-five years. We desire that such a constitutional sejm be extraordinary in accordance with the provisions of a separate law."
This to me seems to imply that the Constitution is only 'open' to amendments at 25-yr periods, in which a special committee will debate changes to the body of the text. This is going to severely curtail efforts in a variety of fields.

I think it is easy to change. After 25 years the first thinbg you change in the Constitution is exactly that paragraph. Now, the Constitution can be amended, but it requires some kind of safety mechanism: an overhelming majority in the Sejm, King's right to veto an amendment, or something like that.
 
Er, where did the idea that confederation = political party comes from? I'm confused.

Also, after The May Constitution confederated Sejms were pointless, as regular Sejm from that time on was to be a confederated Sejm in reality.

About Wettins - IIRC, there was talk OTL about marrying Joseph Poniatowski to one of the daughters of Frederick Augustus. Result: House of Wettin-Poniatowski.
 
Notice, that without 2nd and 3rd partition PLC is much bigger than Duchy of Warsaw (and Saxony too). Therefore it requires more attention, but also is much more important to a ruler of 2 countries. Personally I think that sooner or later (rather sooner) Wettin dynasty would split into "Saxon" and "Polish" branches.

'Sooner or later' doesn't deal with the immediate problem of Frederick Augustus. IOTL Stanisław August Poniatowski three years after his Kingdom had been partitioned out of existence, and had been living as 'guest' of Catherine the Great. So if the Partitions don't happen I don't think it would be unreasonable for him to live longer; his immediate family lived well into their 70s and 80s; so lets say Stanisław August Poniatowski lives until 1805. Frederick Augustus IOTL already appears to have lived a good life, so when he dies in 1827 as per OTL that will be twenty-two years of 'absentee' reign. If Stanisław August Poniatowski dies as per OTL the figures are much worse; twenty-nine years of Augustus' as King of the Commonwealth while still residing in, and clearly favoring, Saxony.

I think it is easy to change. After 25 years the first thinbg you change in the Constitution is exactly that paragraph. Now, the Constitution can be amended, but it requires some kind of safety mechanism: an overhelming majority in the Sejm, King's right to veto an amendment, or something like that.

So the Constitutional text is written in such a poor way that when the first opportunity arises to change it the Poles would first have to change the very method that legally allows them to make amendments to their own constitution? :rolleyes: As I've already said, its a big problem, and not something that can simply be handwaviumed away by saying 'Oh we'll change that'

Er, where did the idea that confederation = political party comes from? I'm confused.

As I said, I'm not sure about the intended language of the text, and not being a native Polish speaker myself I'm working from translated sources. If you have some research which could provide more context into this particular question that would be very welcome.

Also, after The May Constitution confederated Sejms were pointless, as regular Sejm from that time on was to be a confederated Sejm in reality.

This is exactly what I believe(d) the Constitutional text was referring to political parties, societies, organizations and the such. Throughout the text there is a clear move to change the Commonwealth to a centralized, unitary state as opposed to the pseudo-federal PLC. As the Great Sejm simply became the Sejm of the Commonwealth, any other (con)federal Sejms between Poland and Lithuanian became superfluous. Therefore the Constitutional outlawing of 'confederations,' and 'confederated Sejms' must refer to something else; or that particular section of the Constitution is to a large extent redundant.

About Wettins - IIRC, there was talk OTL about marrying Joseph Poniatowski to one of the daughters of Frederick Augustus. Result: House of Wettin-Poniatowski.

See my comments above about Frederick Augustus. While in the long run a possible cadet House of Wettin-Poniatowski would likely do the Commonwealth some good, the founder effect will be in play very strongly while the groundwork for such a House was still being laid. By the time the first Wettin-Poniatowski sat on the throne the informal powers of the King might have been entirely stripped away by the Sejm and the Marshal.
 
Top