Napoleon, Louis XIV and America Now
/
he French Revolution began more than 230 years ago. It had a glorious beginning but ended in ruin. It seems disconnected from our own modern political reality. But that’s simply not true. In fact, what happened in France before, during and after their revolution, offers a lesson that America needs to understand--right now!
Over the second half of the 18th century, leading up to the French revolution, there were swirling political pressures flowing over France. Millions of words and thousands of class lectures have documented those pressures and how they influenced not just one nation, but the world. The standard bullet point understanding of that era goes pretty much like this:
A decadent and detached King Louis the 14th built Versailles, squandered the French fortune and thus plunged his people into poverty.
The French revolted against him in 1789, rising on the ideals of liberty, fraternity, and equality.
The revolution itself faltered, with massive executions of royalty and nobility. That, in turn, opened the door to the rise of Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, who doomed the French in his own way.
While there are some elements of truth in this, it contains gross errors. It also eliminates all context. By turning a few more pages of French history, we can uncover what’s needed to fix America today.
Louis XIV and French society
Fairy tales of old Europe invariably portray kings as all-powerful; what they say goes. This was most definitely not the case when Louis the 14th was crowned king of France. Before him, royal power was limited or even negated by an opposing force.
French society was divided into three formal “estates”: the nobility, the clergy, and everyone else. The nobility also held the highest positions in the clergy, so those two were closely joined. The “everyone else” made up more than 98% of the population and held exactly 0% of social and political power.
The nobility included dozens of aristocrats whose inherited wealth and standing derived from their ownership of sometimes vast land holdings. In their realms, they commanded vassals who managed the land, and all of the peasants who worked for the vassals. The lords claimed most of the profits from their land, sharing some with the vassals, who in turn paid mere pittances to the peasants. A pretty sweet deal for those at the top.
But it was even sweeter than that for the top two percent. First, the nobility, despite their fortunes, were not required to pay taxes; to repeat, they paid none. That burden fell to the masses. And beyond that, those rural masters had the power to table or even ignore dictates issued by the king. They were in charge of their fiefdoms and their people. The king could not overrule them.
Louis the 14th decided to do something about this. He took matters into his own hands:
For decades on end, he simply refused to allow those lords to meet and consider any national legislation. He just said no. At the same time, he erected the first true administrative state, centralizing economic activity and power. Louis also modernized both criminal and civil law, and created new maritime and commercial codes. And perhaps most importantly, he established orderly and wide-ranging foreign trade. Everybody prospered under centralized rule, and France became the dominant nation in Europe, if not the world. There was no question who was in charge; no one objected when Louis declared, “I am the state.”
During his tenure, Louis vastly modernized and expanded the military, mushrooming it by one estimate tenfold—up to 600,000 men. This was fearsome in the eyes of the rest of Europe. It also conveniently assured there would be no rebellion internally, from either nobility or political radicals.
Finally, Louis the 14th constructed the physical embodiment of his power and prestige—the glimmering Palace at Versailles. It quickly became the most celebrated court in Europe, acting as a gilded flytrap. It was irresistible not only to the aristocracy of France, but also to foreign diplomats. This may be history’s best example of the adage, “keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.”
Louis the 14th was all-powerful. He efficiency applied control over his entire nation. Like a modern-day entrepreneur, he broke the old model and built a new one.
The French Revolution
The French Revolution most definitely was not a reaction to Louis the 14th. He was dead some 75 years when it began. What happened during the years between his death and 1789 was the reign of his regrettable successor, Louis the 15th. The names were similar, but the policies were not even close. Louis the 15th was a playboy who reversed almost every good thing his predecessor had done, and let the nobility party again like it was 1599.
The economy crumpled under accumulating debt. Suffering among the masses was widespread. The final blow, ironically, came with France’s military and economic support for American independence. In effect, the cost of underwriting the American revolution led directly to its counterpart in France.
It’s important to note that despite stirring scenes from Les Misérables, the French Revolution was more about food than freedom. After the impassioned overthrow of the king, a five-man ruling council proved ineffective in managing the country.
To make matters worse, every other monarch in Europe recoiled against the idea of the people taking control. Thus, they began the War of the First Coalition, massing troops along France’s borders, ready to put an end to all this anti-royal nonsense. Their combined might seemed invincible against a staggering France. It would take a supreme military mind with a gambler’s instinct to overcome such odds…
Napoleon
Before the revolution, most every French military leader came from the nobility. But that entitled brass could see which way the wind was blowing. The majority grabbed their families and their portable assets and made off for foreign capitals. Better to lose a castle than lose your head.
Napoleon Bonaparte, on the other hand, came from a family of modest means on the island of Corsica. The exodus of the top French military leaders meant a lot of opportunity for younger men further down the chain of command. No one took more advantage than Napoleon.
History properly celebrates Napoleon for commanding troops in a startling series of victories in Italy and Austria, ultimately bringing the Hapsburg dynasty to its knees. But he was also blazing trails in another way. He combined an early understanding of something that would come to be known as public opinion…with an innate gift for self-promotion. The glowing reports and illustrations he fed back to newspapers in Paris helped make him a national hero. It’s not a stretch to say he invented the practice of public relations.
Far less appreciated, but even more remarkable, was his incredibly organized mind. His entrée into the upper military ranks began with skill at marshalling resources and directing them quickly and efficiently to where they were most needed. Today, we would say Napoleon had a master’s touch in supply chain management. He would continue making good use of this skill as he rose in government. He knew the details, he made all the decisions and was fully in control of his future.
One final thought on Napoleon. Despite history’s definition of him as a dictator (in some senses, absolutely true), he never abandoned the original ethos of the revolution. In the words of one historian, “not only in Franc, but across Europe, he proved it was possible to build a stable, successful state on Enlightenment principles, like meritocracy, equality before the law, constitutionalism and personal liberty.”
kay, that’s a quick summary of the era. But what does all this have to do with America today? Consider the single factor threading through the age: centralized, federal control of essential issues. That means economic matters which determine national prosperity…and matters which define a citizen’s personal freedoms. These things cannot be left to dispersed authorities. It doesn’t matter whether those local authorities are called fiefdoms or cities or states.
Keeping that in mind, here’s a more accurate list of key bullet points from this era in France:
Louis the 14th centralized political and economic power. He created the first true “administrative state.” As a result, France overall grew richer and stronger.
His successor reversed those advances, dispersing control back to individual lords. The French Revolution aimed to destroy this structure, but could not undo the damage. Society crumbled.
Napoleon leveraged the chaos and rose above it, employing the same centralization and unity of power that served him so brilliantly in the army. Again, with an overriding administrative state, France got richer and stronger.
The point here is clear. Dispersed power almost ruined France. And now it poses the same threat to America.
oday, we are a “united” states in name only. The feudal lords in some states—the crazed governors, delusional legislators, and ideological judges—are stealing freedoms from their own citizens These are freedoms that were always intended to be nurtured and managed only by the federal government.
Consider what’s going on:
Individual states are drastically restricting voting rights. This is a de facto attack on democracy itself.
Individual states defy attempts to enact federal law establishing sensible gun controls—despite overwhelming citizen support for such laws.
Individual states restrict abortion rights, despite the existence of a federal law known as Roe v. Wade.
Individual states keep moving to limit the scope and benefits of the Affordable Care Act, despite it being upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court.
Finally, a loose confederation of loony right-wing militias attacked federal law enforcement officers inside our U.S. Capitol. This was treason.
Shame.
any people recoil from the thought of absolute control. Do we really want an all-powerful leader? isn’t that what allowed Mussolini and Mao and Hitler to ruin their countries? Isn’t this exactly what Trump was trying to do?
This is an understandable fear. The simplistic answer is to elect the right leaders. After all, FDR had more power than Trump, and used it to win a world war, end poverty, and rebuild an entire economy. Strong is not necessarily wrong.
But let’s face it. Can we really take the risk that voters will get it right?
e’re left with two options. The first allows great concentration of power in the federal government. You’re not wrong if you look at this as a roll of the dice. It can go either way.
But the alternative—as we’re witnessing now—is certified disaster. The eternal call for “state’s rights” is not just a threat to racial equality. It threatens to end democracy.
Or think of it this way. When our essential freedoms are at stake, we all have the right to cast a vote for a President or our Congressional representatives. These are choices available to every voter in the nation. Federal leaders are entrusted by the Constitution to protect our basic rights and freedoms.
On the other hand, voters in 49 states have no say when Constitutional rights in any one state are shattered by that state’s government. No one in California or Connecticut can vote to help protect citizens suffering under the dictatorial mandates of corrupt and deluded governments in backwaters like Texas or Florida. This is not right. And that’s why the Founders granted overriding powers to the Federal government.
Louis the 14th and Napoleon were guilty of excesses and errors. They were human, and they were power-hungry. But each sincerely tried to build their nation and empower their citizens. And each did.
In America today, Republican governors and legislatures, largely in southern states, have no such desires. They simply want to maintain control. There is no measure too desperate for them. They are our enemies.
Because they are willing to tear our democracy down.
Have a comment or thought on this? Just hit the Your Turn tab here or email us at mailbox@cascadereview.net to have your say.
