Even 'educated' French opinion hardly cared about the Poles.
What kind of benchmark are you using? You seem to think that unless the French were actually using magic to send weapons into the territory of another state, they "didn't care". How many weapons did the pan-Slavists in Russia ever deliver to Bulgaria or any other Slavic country? "Cared a whit" does not mean "cared enough to put the country beyond the pale by the century's standards for no gain". Opinions are hardly ever all-or-nothing.
You also contradict yourseld within the post: first they hardly care, then they don't care at all.
Again, the radicals, especially those who hearkened back to the Revolutionary Period, were all for another war of expansionist war to 'liberate' Europe, but there were very much a minority even within their own political circles.
Is that radicals being a minority of political Frenchmen or people who cared about Poland being a minority of radicals? You're playing fast and loose with words here: "the French" don't care, but some of them do. Who exactly are these people "the French" or "they"?
Most French republicans in 1848 and throughout the Second Empire were interested in establishing a non-Monarchist, non-Imperial state, and didn't care about foreign affairs.
Everybody cares about foreign affairs sooner or later.
Indeed, when Louis-Napoléon sent troops to Italy to crush the short-lived Roman Republic the French radicals protested not because they cared a great amount for the Romans, but because in doing so Louis-Napoléon had violated both a resolution passed earlier in the year by the Assembly, and the Constitution of France, and thus had set himself on the path towards an imperial restoration. The 'issue' wasn't foreign affairs, it was a constitutional crisis.
Why does it have to be one or the other? Certainly I have read that Louis himself was balancing pragmatic (get in before the Austrians) and political (buy favour with clerical conservatives), so why not his oponents? Blacks and whites again.
And of course we are apparently able to read their minds in the interests of the debate...
No, you're (quite purposefully) misreading what I stated.
...Not to mention my mind.
It's not that they didn't care enough, its that they didn't care.
Except that apparently they "hardly cared", and some of them were "all for" some sort of foreign adventure.
Mind. Make it up.
Like I already said, annual resolutions are worthless.
They never killed a Russian, but what we're discussing is not whether the French achieved anything for Poland (not bloody much between 1814 and 1914) but whether Poland was a place in which they had a sentimental interest. Annual resolutions in the legislature tell you a lot about the importance of the issue in rhetoric back home.
If most Frenchmen right of Blanqui didn't care, where did the resolution get its votes? If they didn't care, they wouldn't have voted the resolution.
And it did bother the Russians, so much that they were actually agnostic about the coming of the republic.
If the French had been the 'patrons' of Poland, as you've claimed, and had a comparable relationship to the Poles as the US does to Israel, then France would have been sending in weapons by the wagonload throughout the 19th century. It didn't happen; it never happened; the French didn't care.
Comparable just means they can be compared, not that they're the same. I never intended to suggest that the relations were exactly the same, because that never happens. Israel was and is an actually existing state and Poland was just the idea of one, so of course they weren't. And without a state, where would these weapons - once we've got over all the hundred other problems with chucking weapons about before WW1 - going to be sent?
Or by 'government' you mean the short-lived gathering of Blanqui, Barbès, Louis Blanc, Ledru-Rollin, Caussidière and Albert, who, fed up with the National Assembly, retreated from the Assembly to the Hôtel de Ville and began issuing orders for a few short hours previous to their arrest.
My, a short-lived radical government
in 1848 of all years! They called themselves a government, and I would have thought my rather facetious reference to them would have established from the start that I wasn't talking about a body with any authority in the country at large: like I said, demanding Something be Done for Poland was about all they had time for.
Further evidence that "the French" "didn't care". I suppose.
The fact that Imperial Russia was at least involved, with a dedicated foreign policy, in the Balkans and Southeastern Europe points to a concrete fixation on the South Slavs. France had no such policy regarding Poland, and indeed took no actions there until WWI and after.
Except that during the first Bulgarian adventure there were those in the Russian diplomatic service - the ambassodor in London was one of them, Izvolsky, I think his name was - working against the ideas of the pan-Slavs, which they regarded as dangerous. And not long after that Russia got into demanding the Ottomans invade Bulgaria and generally being not-so-dedicated.
So you purposefully created a false analogy to misdirect the discussion?

Nothing is perfect, but you could at least make an analogy that had some basis in fact.
It does have some basis in fact: both are cases of a small country's fate being disproportionately discussed and worried about in a large country.
Obviously you don't accept the interpretation that Poland was an important symbol and rallying cry on the French and European left at this time; fine. But to insist that
my rhetorical tools are invalid because they don't conform to
your reading of the facts is a nonsense way to have a debate.