Napoléon III doesn’t get into power

[Sargon]

The premise of this is that Louis Napoléon doesn't get into any position of power. Maybe he has an accident or never gets out of Ham. Whatever the reason, what sort of affects could this have on France and the wider world? Paris may well be different without his sponsorship of Haussmann and the rather controversial and, er, creative accounting which went on to raise the funds for that massive project.

The French overseas adventures and Empire affected in developments and outcomes too.

Second Empire style may not happen or could be different, and given this influenced other courts, people and countries as far as the US outside of the French realm, there are probably changes there too. Domestic changes he implemented may also not occur.

Also various thinkers and philsophers would have different memorable phrases it would appear. 😉

We might see another Bonaparte try to have a go, however, it's probably more likely to see various forms of Republics over the decades. I suppose we can't rule out a Bourbon or Orléans attempt either.

Anyway, just the changes in culture, art, layout of Paris and other domestic aspects along with overseas outcomes are interesting enough.

Have at it!


Sargon

 

[NedStark]

The most plausible POD is to have the Thouret Amendment passed. This Amendment would have banned all pretenders from running for elections. L-N would have simply been banned from entering politics.

We might see another Bonaparte try to have a go, however, it's probably more likely to see various forms of Republics over the decades. I suppose we can't rule out a Bourbon or Orléans attempt either.

Well, not if all of them are banned from running for political offices.

The French overseas adventures and Empire affected in developments and outcomes too.

Second Empire style may not happen or could be different, and given this influenced other courts, people and countries as far as the US outside of the French realm, there are probably changes there too. Domestic changes he implemented may also not occur.

Sure, Reconstruction of Paris of OTL scale IMO would not happen without LN's personal backing.

The biggest butterflies would be in foreign policies, since French foreign policies between 1850 and 1870 were largely driven by Bonaparte's personal ambitions. Stuffs like Intervention in Mexico and sending troops to Rome to shore up the Pope would have certainly been butterflied away. The Franco-Prussian War would likely have also been butterflied away, and perhaps the Crimean War as well (as Russian interference in the Balkans did not really threaten French interests in practice). The only foreign policy decisions that could still resemble IOTL would be supporting Italian Unification and colonial expansion. In fact, TTL France might support the Roman Republic.

 

[jacob ningen]

The most plausible POD is to have the Thouret Amendment passed. This Amendment would have banned all pretenders from running for elections. L-N would have simply been banned from entering politics.


Well, not if all of them are banned from running for political offices.


Sure, Reconstruction of Paris of OTL scale IMO would not happen without LN's personal backing.

The biggest butterflies would be in foreign policies, since French foreign policies between 1850 and 1870 were largely driven by Bonaparte's personal ambitions. Stuffs like Intervention in Mexico and sending troops to Rome to shore up the Pope would have certainly been butterflied away. The Franco-Prussian War would likely have also been butterflied away, and perhaps the Crimean War as well (as Russian interference in the Balkans did not really threaten French interests in practice). The only foreign policy decisions that could still resemble IOTL would be supporting Italian Unification and colonial expansion. In fact, TTL France might support the Roman Republic.

Without Franco Prussian can Bismarck unify Germany.

 

[Nivek]

Without Franco Prussian can Bismarck unify Germany.

He already did,if anything without Nappy 3, Leopold con Hohenzollern sigmarinen might be in the nomination to be king of Spain and elected without a fuzz

Also no Luxembourg crisis meaning Luxembourg might join the empire in the future

 

[TrickyApe]

Without Franco Prussian can Bismarck unify Germany.

It's not just the Franco-Prussian war at issue. Without the Franco - Austrian conflict, Italy will remain disunited and Austria stronger, which are two strikes against Prussian led unification. Without the Crimean War, Austria and Russia may stay more or less allied, with a level of protection for Austria.

A lot of things will change without Napoleon III's wild adventures. Perhaps even a continuation of the peaceful period of the Congress system?

 

[NedStark]

It's not just the Franco-Prussian war at issue. Without the Franco - Austrian conflict, Italy will remain disunited and Austria stronger, which are two strikes against Prussian led unification. Without the Crimean War, Austria and Russia may stay more or less allied, with a level of protection for Austria.

A lot of things will change without Napoleon III's wild adventures. Perhaps even a continuation of the peaceful period of the Congress system?

A Franco-Austrian conflict could still arise if the Second Republic without Napoleon III provides support to Italian republican movements, like backing the Roman Republic instead of backing the Pope. This venture, if successful, would have given Garibaldi a stronger base to work towards future Italian Unification.

Plus, France and Italy could become allies ITTL instead of Prussia and Italy.

Without the Crimean War, Austria and Russia may stay more or less allied, with a level of protection for Austria.

OTOH, yes, the Crimean War is likely avoided. Austria would have been less isolated in the
1850s-1860s.

 

[TrickyApe]

A Franco-Austrian conflict could still arise if the Second Republic without Napoleon III provides support to Italian republican movements, like backing the Roman Republic instead of backing the Pope. This venture, if successful, would have given Garibaldi a stronger base to work towards future Italian Unification.

Yes, the unanswered question is what a non-Napoleonic France looks like and what its foreign policies are. If the Republic follows a liberal internationalist path then conflict with Austria will remain a possibility, just as it was during the July Monarchy. The Republic didn't jump in during 1848-49 though, so it could also avoid this path.

OTOH, yes, the Crimean War is likely avoided. Austria would have been less isolated in the
1850s-1860s.

Agreed, it's had to see the Republic following Napoleon III's policies about religious prestige in the East. In this case, France might reasonably be wary of direct confrontation with Austria, again following the July Monarchy pattern.

 

[NedStark]

Yes, the unanswered question is what a non-Napoleonic France looks like and what its foreign policies are

Yes, this is the biggest change IMO.

The Republic didn't jump in during 1848-49 though, so it could also avoid this path.

It did, just on the side of the Pope, under President LN.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

A Franco-Austrian conflict could still arise if the Second Republic without Napoleon III provides support to Italian republican movements, like backing the Roman Republic instead of backing the Pope. This venture, if successful, would have given Garibaldi a stronger base to work towards future Italian Unification.

wouldn't involving themselves in sponsoring other republican/revolutionary movements just make everyone else in Europe go "here we go again" and react like it's 1793 all over? It's one thing to go for a president (Bonaparte) who's "calming" things down, but if you have someone like Dupont de l'Eure or Cavaignac (ICR which one was the main runner up) in charge who is a dyed in the wool republican/anti-clericalist who keeps meddling abroad, is anyone going to just "let" that happen?

Of course, there's the option of the comte de Chambord. The marquis de Rochejacquelin called him a "grand fool" for not wishing to involve himself in 1848 OTL, because Chambord refused to stand for election. But if the Thouret Amendment passes, Chambord would have no choice but to fight. I'm not saying he would win, but in 1848, most of the peasant/rural vote went for Napoléon III indicating that outside the main centers, the idea of a republic wasn't all that popular. And Louis Philippe's growing unpopularity has likely made the complaints against Chambord recede into the rearview mirror- after all, the Orléanists would bear the main brunt of the attack- enough that he could be in with a shot

 

[NedStark]

It's one thing to go for a president (Bonaparte) who's "calming" things down, but if you have someone like Dupont de l'Eure or Cavaignac (ICR which one was the main runner up) in charge who is a dyed in the wool republican/anti-clericalist who keeps meddling abroad, is anyone going to just "let" that happen?
Qq1

Depending on what happen on the grounds - since other European monarchies were not exactly busy. Plus, French backing could range from diplomatic saber-rattling, to support for the Romans against the Neapolitans, to Franco-Austrian War 1848 edition.

there's the option of the comte de Chambord. The marquis de Rochejacquelin called him a "grand fool" for not wishing to involve himself in 1848 OTL, because Chambord refused to stand for election. But if the Thouret Amendment passes, Chambord would have no choice but to fight. I'm not saying he would win, but in 1848, most of the peasant/rural vote went for Napoléon III indicating that outside the main centers, the idea of a republic wasn't all that popular. And Louis Philippe's growing unpopularity has likely made the complaints against Chambord recede into the rearview mirror- after all, the Orléanists would bear the main brunt of the attack- enough that he could be in with a shot

Except that the passing of Thouret Amendment means that neither Louis Bonaparte, nor Comte de Chambord, nor Francois d'Orleans would be able to run for Presidency (well, IOTL the republicans took note and wasted no time to ban the pretenders - and further than that, exiled them - once they secured their majority in the Third Republic era). Plus, unlike the other two, Louis Bonaparte was a skilled populist candidate (he definitely knew how to campaign) with an actually popular last name that could appeal to widely different interest groups (including republicans back in 1848) like no other. If you remove L-N, then De Cavaignac would most likely have taken the Presidency.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Except that the passing of Thouret Amendment means that neither Louis Bonaparte, nor Comte de Chambord

Chambord refused to stand for election either (its why Rochejacquelin called him what he did). But in 1848 that was the only peaceful option he had. If revolution/war seems likely, he might be less reluctant to take advantage

 

[NedStark]

Chambord refused to stand for election either (its why Rochejacquelin called him what he did). But in 1848 that was the only peaceful option he had. If revolution/war seems likely, he might be less reluctant to take advantage

My point is that the amendment would have taken that peaceful option away.

 

[NedStark]

Anyway, some questions for the longer term:

1) Since the French President would not be allowed to run for re-election, who would have succeeded Cavaignac? My money is on Adolphe Thiers.

2) How would Paris look like without Haussmann's grand project?

 

[TimTurner]

Anyway, some questions for the longer term:

1) Since the French President would not be allowed to run for re-election, who would have succeeded Cavaignac? My money is on Adolphe Thiers.

2) How would Paris look like without Haussmann's grand project?

1. It's a fairly open thing, could be Thiers? Could be someone else, I'm not sure. I wouldn't rule out another monarchy either.
2. The practical issue of the Parisian streets' veto over the desires of the government and the rest of the country remains unless Paris is remade, so some minor version of what Haussmann did OTL could still proceed. (While being practically certain to not go as far)

 

[piratedude]

The practical issue of the Parisian streets' veto over the desires of the government and the rest of the country remains unless Paris is remade

Or the government setting up shop somewhere else where its harder for a mob to rush them

 

[NedStark]

Or the government setting up shop somewhere else where its harder for a mob to rush them

Well, even though there is the risk of mobs running around, the Republican state's power base is Paris. So, that would not happen.

I wouldn't rule out another monarchy either

Well, Cavaignac definitely looked like someone who could stabilize the republic and make it last into the 1850s. His successors would then benefit from the economic upswings of the 1850s-1870s, which would solidify the new government's hold and shut down any restoration possibilities. Plus, the pretenders were already banned. The Bonaparte dudes - the most dangerous ones as proven by OTL - simply could not gain power without being allowed to run for political offices.

The practical issue of the Parisian streets' veto over the desires of the government and the rest of the country remains unless Paris is remade, so some minor version of what Haussmann did OTL could still proceed. (While being practically certain to not go as far)

Sure. Perhaps a smaller and more practica project focusing on roads and sewers.

 

[raharris1973]

Was Cavaignac anti-clerical, and was he foreign interventionist?

I believe he had foreign experience under the July Monarchy doing his duty in Algeria.

And he had undertaken pro-bourgeois, pro-Republican repression for 'order' against the Socialists and national workshops.

 

[NedStark]

Was Cavaignac anti-clerical, and was he foreign interventionist?

I believe he had foreign experience under the July Monarchy doing his duty in Algeria.

And he had undertaken pro-bourgeois, pro-Republican repression for 'order' against the Socialists and national workshops.

Perhaps we don't really know because ultimately he never got to make that key foreign policy decision IOTL as he lost the election to Napoleon.

IMO, France without LN could either intervene in favour of the Italian revolutionaries or simply focus inwards (a.k.a not helping the Pope).

He already did,if anything without Nappy 3, Leopold con Hohenzollern sigmarinen might be in the nomination to be king of Spain and elected without a fuzz

Also no Luxembourg crisis meaning Luxembourg might join the empire in the future

Alternatively, TTL could witness the emergence of a proper Spanish republican movement (which did not exist IOTL) with a Republican France kicking around right next door for over 20 years. The First Spanish Republic could come into existence earlier and actually last ITTL with stronger domestic republicanism. Such development would have been a big defeat for Bismarck and a major boon for France.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Alternatively, TTL could witness the emergence of a proper Spanish republican movement (which did not exist IOTL) with a Republican France kicking around right next door for over 20 years.

steady the buffs. The constitution of the Second Republic expressly prohibited a president from standing for a second term (it's why LN launched his coup when he did). The proviso had nothing to do with who was standing but rather to prevent a repeat of the First Republic and Consul for Life. So, Cavaignac would only have until 1852/1853 (not sure if it was four or five years). If he's succeeded as president by someone like Blanqui, Dupont de l'Eure, there's no guarantee that it'll be Cavaignac's policies to go forward. There's no proof that any of them would be capable. TBH, Dupont de l'Eure was a difficult personality at the best of times, prone to petty rivalries and squabbles OTL- at least three duels IIRC- do we realyl think that he's just going to let Cavaignac walk off with the prize? And even if he does, he could very much be the leader of the opposition to Cavaignac and attempt to undermine the president.

I don't say that this will happen, just that it could. There's no guarantee that we get a "stable" republic for 10 years, much less 20. Hell, we could get a "stable" republic and a far weaker France on the European stage. I think the problem was that you had men who had such widely differentiating ideas: Thiers, Olivier, Trochu, even Hugo wanted to be supreme dictator for a while (and establish a proto-EU), to say nothing of Blanqui, Dupont de l'Eure and others... that it's very possible that the pendulum can swing one way this presidency and in the opposite direction in the presidency after that. Or that a president is elected as national leader, but the chambres are stuffed with men who hate his guts.

Speaking of, the first decision we need to reach- even before Napoléon III doesn't get elected- is whether the French chambres are going to be unicameral or bicameral. While this sounds like a ridiculous thing to quibble over, ti actually was a major thing when drafting the 1848 constitution. In fact, the only reason they settled on the system they went with was because the chief proponent of the one idea (Alexis de Tocqueville, a conservative republican) was out sick. As a result, the vote went against him.

A bicameral system has the advantage of providing checks and balances and preventing possible abuses of power, but it may also lead to deadlock, making legislation difficult to pass. A unicameral system has the advantage of allowing laws to be passed more quickly.

Just food for thought

 

[NedStark]

The constitution of the Second Republic expressly prohibited a president from standing for a second term (it's why LN launched his coup when he did). The proviso had nothing to do with who was standing but rather to prevent a repeat of the First Republic and Consul for Life. So, Cavaignac would only have until 1852/1853 (not sure if it was four or five years). If he's succeeded as president by someone like Blanqui, Dupont de l'Eure, there's no guarantee that it'll be Cavaignac's policies to go forward. There's no proof that any of them would be capable. TBH, Dupont de l'Eure was a difficult personality at the best of times, prone to petty rivalries and squabbles OTL- at least three duels IIRC- do we realyl think that he's just going to let Cavaignac walk off with the prize? And even if he does, he could very much be the leader of the opposition to Cavaignac and attempt to undermine the president

- Dupont actually supported Cavaignac against LN IOTL, plus, he retired and died quite soon. As for Blanqui, he would have been a massive change, but was too radical to actually win.

- Olivier was a moderate Republican at that time and so was Hugo, and IMO Olivier would not be in contention as early as in 1852. Lamartine - his moment had well passed by then.

- As for Thiers (or alternatively Barrot), if he became President, his domestic policies would not actually diverge much, since Cavaignac policies were already at the centre.

- Cavaignac was already stabilizing France and if he got a full term he would have managed to secure the Republic's place. By 1852, stabilization and general economic recovery (both in France and in Europe - the 1850s IOTL marked the long continent-wide economic boom that lasted for over 20 years) would have left his successor in a quite good position.

I don't say that this will happen, just that it could. There's no guarantee that we get a "stable" republic for 10 years, much less 20. Hell, we could get a "stable" republic and a far weaker France on the European stage. I think the problem was that you had men who had such widely differentiating ideas: Thiers, Olivier, Trochu, even Hugo wanted to be supreme dictator for a while (and establish a proto-EU), to say nothing of Blanqui, Dupont de l'Eure and others... that it's very possible that the pendulum can swing one way this presidency and in the opposite direction in the presidency after that. Or that a president is elected as national leader, but the chambres are stuffed with men who hate his guts

I think France would not be weaker in absolute term, but rather in terms of diplomatic influence/standing - which might not be a bad thing given how LN's adventurism came back to bite his ass at the end of his reign. Plus, with fewer commitments in Europe and America (Mexico), it could easily make more cheap gains via colonial conquests - there were still lots of unoccupied lands around in the 1850s.