There are many mistakes about the rise to power of Napoleon III.
If he won the election of 1848 so easily, it was because Thiers and the Party of the Order supported him, believing to be able to manipulate him, but they were wrong.
And contrary to what can be said, he had popular support for his coup in 1851.
After the June Days Uprising, the IInd Republic had become a mere ultra-conservative oligarchy. We can see in the Laws of May 31st of 1850 an example of this: these laws excluded around 3 millions of voters of the electoral corps (around 9 millions at the time), mainly workers. The Prince-President was able to exploit the popular dissatisfaction and to present himself as defender of people. Thus, one of the articles of the presidential decree which began the coup was the abolition of these electoral laws.
Thereafter, he waited a year to proclaim the Empire. It was a year which saw a considerable strenghtening of the presidential powers, surely to prepare the Empire.
Napoleon III was a democrat but not to the sense we think. For him, democracy was to be embodied into a leader. It is not so different from gaullism which led to a sort of 'presidential monarchy'.
His base of support, he found it with the industrials. Their support permitted him to maintain an authoritarian government over France during the 1850's.
But the treaty of free-trade with the UK in 1860 alienated him their support, and he was forced to make concession to the opposition.
From concessions to concessions, he abandonned the essential of his powers to the Parliament. Two events marked it particularly: in 1869, he appointed the first Prime Minister of his reign, then in 1870, a new constitution adopted through popular referendum established a parliamentarian regime, like the british one. But we mustn't forget that these concessions were also in part due to a worsening health and to his age. The situation was such that he wished to abdicate when his son would have 18 years.
Ironically, these concessions are in my opinion the cause of his fall. If he had remained authoritarian, the military reforms he wanted and which were led by Marshal Niel would have been totally implemented and I doubt that Sedan would have happened in this case.
What's more, the war with Prussia was undertook under popular pressure, in spite of emperor's will.
Even in 1870, the Empire remained very popular. The results of the constitutionnal referendum clearly shows it: 7,35 millions for, 1,35 against. Gambetta said at this time 'the Empire is stronger than ever'. Although the urban centers voted against the Empire, the countryside was largely for, what is very important since France was still predominantly rural.
The IIIrd Republic is due to the disaster of Sedan and to the Parisians.
If he won the election of 1848 so easily, it was because Thiers and the Party of the Order supported him, believing to be able to manipulate him, but they were wrong.
And contrary to what can be said, he had popular support for his coup in 1851.
After the June Days Uprising, the IInd Republic had become a mere ultra-conservative oligarchy. We can see in the Laws of May 31st of 1850 an example of this: these laws excluded around 3 millions of voters of the electoral corps (around 9 millions at the time), mainly workers. The Prince-President was able to exploit the popular dissatisfaction and to present himself as defender of people. Thus, one of the articles of the presidential decree which began the coup was the abolition of these electoral laws.
Thereafter, he waited a year to proclaim the Empire. It was a year which saw a considerable strenghtening of the presidential powers, surely to prepare the Empire.
Napoleon III was a democrat but not to the sense we think. For him, democracy was to be embodied into a leader. It is not so different from gaullism which led to a sort of 'presidential monarchy'.
His base of support, he found it with the industrials. Their support permitted him to maintain an authoritarian government over France during the 1850's.
But the treaty of free-trade with the UK in 1860 alienated him their support, and he was forced to make concession to the opposition.
From concessions to concessions, he abandonned the essential of his powers to the Parliament. Two events marked it particularly: in 1869, he appointed the first Prime Minister of his reign, then in 1870, a new constitution adopted through popular referendum established a parliamentarian regime, like the british one. But we mustn't forget that these concessions were also in part due to a worsening health and to his age. The situation was such that he wished to abdicate when his son would have 18 years.
Ironically, these concessions are in my opinion the cause of his fall. If he had remained authoritarian, the military reforms he wanted and which were led by Marshal Niel would have been totally implemented and I doubt that Sedan would have happened in this case.
What's more, the war with Prussia was undertook under popular pressure, in spite of emperor's will.
Even in 1870, the Empire remained very popular. The results of the constitutionnal referendum clearly shows it: 7,35 millions for, 1,35 against. Gambetta said at this time 'the Empire is stronger than ever'. Although the urban centers voted against the Empire, the countryside was largely for, what is very important since France was still predominantly rural.
The IIIrd Republic is due to the disaster of Sedan and to the Parisians.
Speak for yourself, White Man.