Revolution and Reaction - A (very) French Victoria II Interactive AAR

[Cloud Strife]

Paris, August 15, 1815

Tendering his resignation as War Minister, Marshal Laurent de Gouvion Saint-Cyr, focused his efforts on winning clemency for his dear friend and fellow Napoleonic Marshal, Michel Ney. He had seen the rise and fall of the Republic, Empire, the Bourbons, the Empire again, and now found himself living under Bourbons. All had abused France, all had been found wanting in their attempts to govern. The Republic and Empire had promoted too many men of ill-repute to high office, the Bourbons had made the mistake of resuming judging a man's character by the circumstances of their birth. If the court of Louis XVIII had treated Madame Ney with the respect due to the wife of a Duc and Marshal of France, perhaps he would not have so readily joined Bonaparte's cause during the Cent Jours. Out of all his peers, he had got along with Ney the best and Ney had many a time soothed feelings between the Emperor, used by unrestrained praise, and Saint-Cyr, who moderated his tongue--when he chose to speak--for no one. It was now time to return the favor to save his old friend's life.

There were bigger issues to be tackled, in addition to winning clemency for Ney, that Saint-Cyr had to address. The King had called for a new election. Ultraroyalist mobs roamed the countryside and cities. The Imperial Guard and veterans of the Empire were dispersed and now subject to abuse or worse by these mobs. Aside from the King and his hangers-on there was nothing to indicate the existence of a French government. That 2/3rds of the country were occupied by foreigners and the south subject to mob rule underlined how desperate the situation had become. Between attending meetings of the Chamber of Peers and pleading for mercy being shown to Ney, Saint-Cyr readied himself active service should the need arise. Pacifying the countryside and keeping the foreign occupiers mollified would become a priority whether King Louis liked it or not.

Privately he had little faith in the quality of the émigré lead army. The raw recruits forming the body of the French Army lacked the animation that only fighting for a higher cause could produce. Their leaders were either armchair generals, second-rate or has-been officers from the Napoleonic Era, or great captains--like himself--barely tolerated by the Bourbons but too skilled to retire in the face of the vast challenges France was now facing. Publicly, Saint-Cyr was forced to whip his command into shape an make do with what scraps from the days of Empire that were left. One of his pet projects that he continued to advocate for in the Chamber of Peers was reversing the légions départementales ordinances.

The Bourbons mandated that the regiments of Napoleon's Army were to be disbanded disbanded and reorganized into departmental legions. Each of these new legions was required to recruit soldiers from the department for which it was named. At that time there were eighty-six departments, each of which was to have three battalions--two of infantry and one of light infantry--making for a total of 258 battalions. Soldiers of the old regiments were loyal to Napoleon and many deserted rather than serve the Bourbons. There were imbalances and inequalities between the departmental legions since not all departments were equal in population and wealth. Yet the requirements were the same, a total of 1,687 soldiers and 103 officers for each legion.

Saint-Cyr advocated a return to limited conscription and the preservation of the identity of the old Napoleonic regiments. Many of them had roots in the Ancien Régime, Saint-Cyr never tired of pointing out. Only a truly national army could protect France and this attempt at rooting out Bonapartism only had the affect of antagonizing the military class and weakening French strength in the future. Indeed, most of the population only saw the recent events afflicting France as a set back. Eventually France would recover and then resume its status as the leading power in Europe. For that to happen an effective military would have to be reforged for the inevitable day when France would have to make war on lesser nations once more.

 

[MastahCheef117]

THE NATIONAL FOLLY.

And the insurmountable evidence refuting its Usefulness and rejecting its Implementation.

by

AUGUSTE-PHILIPPE, the COMTE de DHUIZON

friend of HIS MAJESTY the KING,

son of COMTE JACQUES-HENRI,

and an OFFICER of the ROYAL ARMY who SERVED in 1791 and AGAIN THIS YEAR,

who is DETERMINED to ensure the SOVEREIGNTY & LONGEVITY of the REALM.

_______________________________________

A Directory.
​

I. an INTRODUCTION: the STATE of NATIONAL and POLITICAL AFFAIRS.

II. CHAPTER the FIRST: the NATURE of the ROYAL CHARTER.​

a. a REFLECTION on the PERSON and POWER of HIS MAJESTY the KING
b. the NATURAL ORDER, BEING PREDICATED upon GOD'S NATURAL LAW
c. the PROMULGATION of the ROYAL CHARTER as a BULWARK against ANARCHY​

III. CHAPTER the SECOND: a BRIEF REFLECTION on the CHARACTER of CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, and a REJECTION of the MOB RULE.

a. a RIGHT to NATIONAL LIBERTY …
b. and a RIGHT from NATIONAL ANARCHY
c. the COMMON NECESSITY: a CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT of LAWS, not MEN
d. NATIONAL and PERSONAL LIBERTY—a MOST IMPORTANT DISTINCTION​

IV. CHAPTER the THIRD: a FINAL REFUTATION of “POPULAR GOVERNMENT”.

a. to ESTABLISH and UPHOLD the LAWS …
b. or to POPULARIZE the GOVERNMENT?
c. the POPULAR NECESSITY to reject POPULAR GOVERNMENT​

V. a CONCLUSION: a STRONG REALM is PREDICATED upon STRONG GOVERNMENT.

_________________________________________


I. an INTRODUCTION: the STATE of NATIONAL and POLITICAL AFFAIRS.
​

Known to the reader, surely, aside from an indelible slew of memories gathered over the past two and one-half decades, is at least a most basic and general knowledge of the nature of Government and of Laws, and, perhaps, the nature of all interactions between Man, and between Man and King, and between Man and God, and the interactions between Man and the wild beasts of the Earth, and all other interactions besides; and, from there, one could deduce, given enough time, that, there being a "natural state" of all things, there must, alongside it, surely be a natural state for all smaller portions of the natural world within it. To wit: a natural state of man, and of woman; a natural state of the waters and the trees and the birds in the sky; and, to posit to the reader, a natural state of Government, and its attendant interactions with Man. For despite the machinations of several Persons, known to the reader by their very merit (or, perhaps more accurately put, their sins and crimes) and therefore whose names shall not be mentioned within these pages, good Government has persisted into this new century and decade, and the rightful King of France, appointed by God to see over the nation, remains on the great Throne. He has given us a Charter, about which the author will write at great length later on, and has returned to the countryside and the cities peace and security. The enemies of His rule, just and supreme as it is, have been rooted out, and punished according to their crimes, be it theft, or libel, or armed rebellion, or blasphemy, of the highest order, against our highest and most terrible God.

The character of the French constitution is that of a monarch who, in His great wisdom and generosity, has granted us a document that, clearly and in no uncertain terms, delineates the powers and responsibilities of the various chambers and offices of the Government, lays out the foundations and justifications of the royal Power in plain language, and guarantees certain liberties to the people over whom He rules. It is right and proper, that a modern nation as France lay down the tenants by which His Majesty the King lives and rules; and, what is more, that the tenants are presented and organized so as to ensure constitutional government, without infringing upon the rights and powers of the Person of the King. Such government and such monarchical rule prevents the usurpation of the law by anarchists, as much as it establishes the precedence for good Government by figures other than the King who hold office at His pleasure and for the good of His country and subjects.

What, then, is to be debated, if not the nature of this Charter, the implications for future Government practices it forms and presents, and the tiresome and faulty proposals which some in Government move to implement? Who then could be opposed to the strong government of King Louis, whose benevolence in His rule has allowed us a constitution of such greatness as the national Charter? It begs to be answered: that the perverting character of republicanism, and the distaste of its proponents for proper, good, and most responsible Government, has led to a Great Distraction, driving the many hordes of Frenchmen to the possibility of themselves maintaining a grip on Power — when it is instead only the King's to have and to maintain, for His long and wondrous life. It is instead our duty to minister to His requests, and as He has requested us bid Him thanks for the many laws He has given us, as well as the responsible and limited power to create and formulate laws as only He had otherwise been able to do, we are bound to His will forevermore and as long as He and his blessed descendants yet live and reign by God. It is the opinion of some in this country, and some even in this Government — and those who maintain their position in society through the good graces of the benevolent King Louis himself — that natural laws, particularly the laws that have established the King as the dread sovereign of France and that man shall live over woman, are not only corrupted or incomplete, but rather incorrect in their entirety. On the other end of Government lies those with whom the author sympathizes: those, rather, that propose that natural Government and a government and realm of Laws does not discriminate against any Man, as can be witnessed in the Royal Charter of King Louis; but rather that popular Government, which the others propose, is the corrupted one, which taints the natural laws and seeks their total destruction, and a return to the general anarchy and poverty that bore down on France for some two decades.

The following pages, though brief, shall lay out a series of criticisms, formulated by the author, against not just the form of republicanism that has plagued and continues, in many cases, to plague the countryside and the cities; but any form of ideology or thought or faction that promotes popular Government, instead of good Government — as the two are very much different and, in their entirety, of different essence and character.

II. CHAPTER the FIRST: the NATURE of the ROYAL CHARTER.​

a. a REFLECTION on the PERSON and POWER of HIS MAJESTY the KING

His Majesty Louis XVIII, by the Grace of God, Most Christian King of France and Navarre is not only the eighteenth king in His name to rule France, but one in a venerated and celebrated line of kings who have presided over good and difficult times, from the dark days before Otto of Germany to the present day — one of national and political confusion, of strife in all sectors and strains of society, and of great transformation in the soul of the realm. It cannot be easily denied, that the King, being appointed by God to see to the French realm, is, having been appointed and given attendant Powers for the purpose, is thus the greatest unifying figure for all French, and is the embodiment of the national experience, of the history of the realm, of the achievements of His ancestors, and of the hopes of His subjects, both living and those yet unborn.

The unspoken traditions of the past — some written and others even unwritten and known only through the generations — have held the King to be the one total sovereign of France, the only person that may establish and uphold the laws, to create the courts and execute justice, to defend the realm and raise armies on His own purse, and to enjoy the welfare of his loyal and noble subjects. Today this all remains true. The souls that had spent their many years to destroy that tradition and fact since the Revolution, and particularly since the 10 August battle at the Tuileries Palace (after which, it should be noted, the one King of France, the elder brother of our beloved King Louis XVIII, was unseated, and later brutally and barbarically murdered), have, by now, clearly failed. The ultimate task of destroying the institution now nothing but a chilling and shameful memory upon the minds of the French, His Majesty moved, instead of returning to the ancien régime, to take a different course of action, that is, to, within the confines of the most basic of natural law, promulgate a basic constitution to alter the character of the government of His kingdom, granting it new positions to be filled with other ministers who, not usually privy to the matters of state, would not have been appointed to fill such positions otherwise. This new constitution, in the body of the Charter of 1814, does not violate the person or Powers of His Majesty the King; nor does it take from him his rights and duties to propose and execute the laws, provide for the defense of the realm from his own purse, or to represent the will of God on the earth. This constitution grants higher ministers the ability to form new policy, with the consent of His Majesty, to guide the realm in new times and with new ideas. And yet still, these policies may at any time be unquestionably ended or changed, depending on His will. Thus is the King's power cemented and maintained in this promulgation.

Those who would hold that the Charter weakens and neglects the power of the Monarch through the approval, through law, of various new state ministers to carry out the laws, have clearly not read the Charter itself; and those that call for further change, to effect a new popularly-based government, must instead wait, for the author shall challenge their own false conceptions in but several pages. It remains to be seen whether the King will revoke His just act, but the author sees no need of it; as His will is law, the Charter, reigning as His law throughout the land, grants newfound privileges in the law, which were already made fact by our virtue of being a part of Mankind, that have until now never been enjoyed.

b. the NATURAL ORDER, BEING PREDICATED upon GOD'S NATURAL LAW

Any just and God-fearing society places at its apex one holy person, in our instance the great King Louis, who rules in the stead of the Lord and whose power is found in the prophecies and in the Gospels. His legitimacy is found in the annals of the history of France, of the untold stories of merit and justice and virtue that His throne has seen throughout the ages. This timeless commitment to holiness and goodness can never be matched by any mortal man.

This Royal Charter about which the author speaks both plainly and with admiration is not a document crafted by the hands of Man, but of the Monarch — of the King whose benevolent laws remain a fact by His pleasure alone, whose ministers serve at but His pleasure, and whose terrible Powers, similar with but not dare matching those of God, are near-supreme throughout France — and thus is a document not to be treated as otherwise. There is at the top of the pyramid of our society a King, whose power and legitimacy derives from all of French history second, and from the Lord God first (and He himself stands above and outside that pyramid). This King has happened to grant generously and wisely to His people a law, ruling with equal force as all the other laws He and His ancestors have ever promulgated and executed, to grant certain duties and powers to various persons of his choosing, who are deemed most capable of carrying out the tasks delegated to them; and that among these tasks fall the maintenance of the army and navy, the maintenance of the treasury, and all expenditures and receipts; the maintenance of the interest on the debt; the minutes of relations with the other foreign Powers of the Continent; and all other efforts and responsibilities, many much too small and time-consuming, for the wise and powerful Monarch to tend to with His precious and limited time and energies. These ministers, granted these responsibilities as a true blessing from God, naturally fall below the person of His Majesty, but, as they remain in office at His pleasure, are reminded of their earthly essence and thus are to remain their for all of their many healthy and happy years. It would be a mistake to assume that those persons so entrusted are in any way less capable than the many millions of other persons in the Kingdom; or that their princely blood, or high status, endears them to merit, skills in state, and skills in warfare any less than any other man. Upon such matters the author will touch later.

c. the PROMULGATION of the ROYAL CHARTER as a BULWARK against ANARCHY

That defamed institution, or lack thereof, that reigned in the days of Danton, Robespierre, and their allied ilk, who hated God and the King and all good things on this earth, is as always an ever-present threat in all societies and realms of the world. Anarchy is the detested lack of the rule of law, and is the enemy of all rulers in all realms around the world. It is anarchy that spills the blood of neighbors, incites the heart to hatred of Man and lust for violence, teaches the arm to swing and strike and stab, and brings all realms that do not take its threats and perverse power seriously. It was anarchy that struck down the kingdom in 1789, and again in 1793; 'twas anarchy that took the life of His Majesty's elder sibling. It was anarchy that instituted the blasphemous republican Government of that decade, ushering in the terrible age of war and poverty that many of us have yet to recover from. His realm still bleeds mightily for it, and from His purse and His energies must be pay dearly for many years to come.

The replacement of anarchy once again with proper Government necessitates safeguards to prevent its rise once again. The republican menace, like the scourge of the black plague, entered into the kingdom slowly at first, and acted as an unknown agent, when all at once it exploded, collapsed the monarchy, and brought untold misery to millions of souls. The republican threat inaugurated the great many wars that ravaged Europe until this very summer, and from which it will take many years and man-hours of labor to recover. Thus it is justified for one to say, "republican Government is no Government at all"; or that republicanism is anarchy.

Since the Great Restoration we are now witness to a new republicanism which has attempted to infiltrate this Government in the guise of popular government; this is another word among anarchists for anarchy. The Royal Charter defends against anarchy with its proclamation to uphold all the laws, to respect the natural rights of all of His Majesty's subjects, and to defend the traditions of the realm. Where a rejection of monarchy is an immediate and inescapable trend, quickly enforced and even more quickly brought into reality, to total anarchy, an acceptance of monarchy and the quick creation of safeguards against its destruction is as sure to uphold the law of the realm, and to defend the livelihoods of His Majesty's subjects, as the sun is sure to rise on the morrow. It is folly, the author knows, to instead favor an expansion of the government in the direction of popularism, for the expansion in that way is similarly a destruction of the Government, gradual if need be, toward the end-goal of anarchy.

While Constitutions are adopted by Governments and promulgated by just Monarchs, the Constitutions of republicans are not so. They grant sweeping powers to what is claimed to be "the people", a term so colored with emotion and so twisted to their anarchic will so as to muddy the whole discussion altogether. But it cannot be forgot that these republican constitutions bear no good will for the King, nor for "the people" — His loyal subjects — themselves. Rather, these republican and popular constitutions favor a rejection of all history, and of all reason contrary to their opinion, that state that central Government, rejecting the mob and all they demand, is indeed the superior form which Governments take on. The Royal Charter explicitly lays out the rejection of the republican and popularist principles; and that in the King alone rests all the legislative and executive power, preventing a seizure of Government by the radicals who fancy Danton and Robespierre their dark and godless heroes and inspirations.
​

III. CHAPTER the SECOND: a BRIEF REFLECTION on the CHARACTER of CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT, and a REJECTION of the MOB RULE.
​

a. a RIGHT to NATIONAL LIBERTY …

The term which the author shall introduce into this section will perhaps, or more directly and accurately certainly, color the emotions of the reader with many feelings, perhaps of infatuation and perhaps of hatred. Grant not your feelings the power to ignore the author's words; grant instead the author the chance to define them, so as to better understand his words, which shall certainly ennoble his thoughts and remove any predisposed thoughts, unjust in their nature, as to his intentions and feelings.

The two words "national liberty" shall be defined thus: not to evoke the fears of Napoleon and his despotic reign, nor the Terror two decades ago under the Committee, but instead an understanding, among and between all of His Majesty's subjects, that the premier worry of any good Government, and therefore the Government of His Majesty's France, that a rejection of republican government — the rejection of anarchy — comes with it an acceptance of the Royal Charter, and with it all of its provisions pertaining to the indisputable power of the Monarch and His many ministers, who sit in office and exercise their duties at His just and good pleasure. National liberty defines the boundaries which shall separate the subjects of His Majesty, from all parts of the realm refusing to accept the distinctions of dialect or purse, and instead defines the boundary between the two: Subject and anarchist. The boundaries have been discussed in a brief few words in previous pages, and perhaps now can be more better understood by the reader: for the anarchist rejects any and all reason and instead favors the mob violence which almost destroyed France. The anarchist rejects the notion that good Government is essential, and favors the Government of emotion and of terror.

The question of national liberty, therefore, is essential to understanding the goodness of the Royal Charter and, by a greater extension, the necessity of good constitutional Government, particularly constitutional Government as it currently exists in this realm. A constitution, promulgated as the Charter was by good King Louis, exists to form the definitions of the boundaries of non-kingly ministers, offices, and chairs; it exists to provide for the execution of royal laws and decrees when the King, too taken with other pressing concerns, is unable to manage the many offices, officers, and willing and loyal subjects. In the Royal Charter is expressed the rights of Man, which are defended within, and that same document expresses the just and correct need to defend the majesty and person of the King. These two go hand in hand, contrary to what the republicans and anarchists may claim, and complement one another to such a degree that the Royal Charter is the great constitution of all the realms of Europe, and perhaps may never be superseded.

Rather than impose upon the individual, the Charter, and all other good state constitutions with it, imposes upon all the subjects of the Realm, at the expense of no man or group of men more than the other, clearly defining the definitions of the law, establishing the standards of its most just and broad execution, and providing for the maintenance and continuance of good royal governance through the ministers of the King. In any case its proper execution will benefit no one man more than another. Such is the will of the benevolent King!

b. and a RIGHT from NATIONAL ANARCHY

The author has spoken of the right to national liberty. Now the author shall speak of the right from national anarchy. If one is to take the definition of the former, and then be introduced to the form of the latter, it can be expected, by any good and decent man, that its definition is thus: a lack of good Government, or of any Government at all; a realm which chafes under a republican Constitution, or which suffers under a Constitution which refuses to respect the historical tradition; it is a state of Government in which there is no proper execution of the law, no proper enforcement of its provisions, constitutional and otherwise; and one in which the law endangers the stability and peace of the realm in favor of uncertain and unstable government ruled by tyrants, by idiots, or a combination of the both.

That man would be correct. National anarchy reigned supreme in this great realm for some time, and came to an end very recently. The efforts of His Majesty the King have put an end to that state, and returned national liberty to its right and proper place. A rejection of national anarchy is not only right in a society, but necessary, for a lack of that rejection will result in its eventual bloody and destructive conquest.

c. the COMMON NECESSITY: a CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT of LAWS, not MEN

In saying "the common necessity", the author must immediately qualify those words with the words: the common necessity means not the expansion of the franchise, nor the declaration of all political rights to all people, nor the presence of total virtual representation as can be seen in the English system; but rather that the unity and acceptance of the royal proclamations and laws, as with the Charter of 1814, ensures the highest degree of happiness for all of His subjects, and ensures the prosperity and peace of the realm. Were a nation to divide among its many republican factions, as happened in the wars of the 1790s, what then can be born? The people of France witnessed a great misery as foreign armies tramped on her fields, burned her cities, and drew the blood of husbands and sons. The devastation wrought cannot be understated. And if France were unified under its rightful King in those conflicts, and all His proclamations and edicts duly respected, what then would have happened? Would France have suffered as it eventually did? Surely, the financial and political predicaments of the purse and this Government would not be so poor as they are today. What the author and the reader would instead see is a strong and dignified Government — as we enjoy today — yet one that has not the painful memories of a divided and bloodied France.

It is often uttered and argued for, sometimes and once long ago in the very chambers of Government, that what is needed is a government of Men, ruled through the will of the great masses. What, then, are of laws? Under the leadership of the republican Robespierre, the constitution demanded a respect for the rights of Man — and yet he instituted the Terror that saw the death of untold thousands of men loyal to His Majesty the King. What, then, of rights, as they had been so "enshrined" in the republican document? It is folly to assume that those rights were protected in all cases, or indeed in many cases or any case. Governments of men shall be likewise dominated by emotions, as all republican constitutions eventually develop into, and thus governments of men soon become not governments at all.

The common necessity, against the author's colleagues and equals who call for such constitutions, is instead not in favor of the national anarchy, but instead turns to the side of national liberty: the rule of natural law and of His Majesty's law. It is undeniable that the American Republic has survived under one republican constitution as long as it has. Some may claim that this is reason enough to abandon His Majesty's Charter altogether and revert back to our base republican state. But what would that do? The American people, rough-hewn as they are, have enjoyed the republican state as long as their people have existed. They have never enjoyed a strong government as is needed here in Europe and, more specifically, in France. The argument, which is oft-repeated, that the "success" of republican Government across the ocean necessitates a likewise change in and adoption of such Government here is as disingenuous in fact as it is ignorant of historical fact and present reality and necessity.

d. NATIONAL and PERSONAL LIBERTY—a MOST IMPORTANT DISTINCTION

Of utmost importance in this chapter is the distinction between liberty in the national sense and liberty in the personal sense; where one establishes true prosperity and encourages proper execution of and obedience to the rule of law, the other — personal liberty — necessitates a devolution to anarchy, a return to Man in his most primitive and natural state, in a world where Man, though granted the rights by God, has those rights, time and time again, violated by his neighbor in the pursuit of power or the creation of a society in which equality in action takes precedence over law. This is a misleading claim, in deed: that equality is the natural state of Man. For though we all have our rights vested in us by God — and so in that sense we are in a way naturally equal — there yet remains the distinctions that belabors many to assume that the differences of society stem from an unequal distribution of the powers God has delegated to Man.

And thus the doctrine of personal liberty is created. The well-meaners, though blessed by God as they must surely be, cannot be followed nor believed easily simply because of that being their chief characteristic. They must always remain suspect to the educated or informed eye, or even to those that lack both qualities, they are so charming and endearing as to remain suspect in any case. The distinction between personal and national liberty is so muddied and then quietly shuffled away or even destroyed that many find themselves believing they are adherents to the latter, when in fact they are truly enslaved to the former. There has been no greater destructor of national liberties and of law and just and good Government as the claim that this "new equality" can be reclaimed through the destruction of the state and a new slavelike adherence to republican anarchism. This we have witnessed firsthand during the wars of the previous two decades, and all the social and political tumult that came with them (or, more rather, that preceded and caused them).

Mob rule derives from personal liberty as just Government is the product of national liberty. These two connections cannot ever be denied nor prevented no matter the best abilities of stout Men of all persuasions. God gave to man the agency to do all — but it is when we reject His teachings that we suffer by His hand and the hands of other men. To reject the virtue and goodness of national liberty, which, being the state in which the Government of good Kings is preserved, is therefore the natural state of things under a just God as ours, is treason to our King as much as it is blasphemy and rejection of our God. To do either is to destroy wholesale the goodness of the world.

IV. CHAPTER the THIRD: a FINAL REFUTATION of “POPULAR GOVERNMENT”.
​

a. to ESTABLISH and UPHOLD the LAWS …

Good government, as has been communicated to the reader many times already throughout this document, is the result of benevolent kingship as much as it is a producer of goodwill and prosperity, worldly and spiritually. The wholesome man attends the Mass, prays to God, confesses his sins, receives the Sacraments, and commits himself to the doing of earthly works to please Him; the flawed man seeks personal power and wealth, sacrifices the national liberty for some personal liberty — only for a brief time, before the Terror reaches him as well, and parts from his head the rest of his body — and invites poverty and misfortune to reign over himself and all the people of the realm.

The popular necessity is then not only to love one's King, but also to adore the law as it was promulgated; to abide by it as it is executed; and to follow its judgment and teachings when it is put into practice. Popular government at its most basic rejects these three staples of a harmonious and peaceful society, allowing instead all manner of evil things to creep in and erode at the fabric of mankind, reducing them to groveling pitiful masses stealing and betraying to receive their plot of land and their crop of food. It is terrible indeed to witness those so ignorant and so wanting of knowledge and worldliness — for they almost seem to know not what they do — so soon after the catastrophes of 1789, 1792, and 1793 and after.

b. or to POPULARIZE the GOVERNMENT?

The call to popularize government to usher in the profound and fallacious "new natural equality" is born out of the urges and calls for revolution in the early days of uncertainty in 1789. The reader and the author are both well aware of where these calls for radical change quickly lead: to the undoing of many a good man, to the death of innocents, to the compromising of the state of the kingly Government and the destruction of the domestic and international peace for decades. Popularism is indeed the most dangerous of the new factions to arise out of the dark and deadly days of Napoleon the False, and in its wake it leaves so many false claims and so many misplaced emotions and intentions as to confuse the mind and wrap itself up in all of its failures. The demands of the popularists are founded in demands for this incalculable and unquantifiable equality first, and in their vexing and confusing worry with the supposed "problems" of the material world second. It is not a question of whether the popularists know that their demands cannot reasonably be met; it is that they know not what their demands even are.

For some it is to expand the franchise to the many millions of souls in the realm. What then?—shall we have millions of people, uneducated in the slightest, not knowing what they are to decide on, much less what the contents of the Royal Charter is, to decide for the other millions?—and should they receive one extra vote over their opponents, they shall win the day and their word become law? What of the responsibilities of the King, which have been laid out and recognized for centuries? What, then, of the concept of good and just Government, when the emotions of millions carry us to the pit of tyranny and bloodshed, whose hunger, until recently sated, already seems to be hunger-starved for more?

The supposition that this system of Government — that is, no government at all — is in some vapid way stimulating to the mind and perplexing to the intellectuals, when in fact it is neither, and more succinctly summarized, it is nothing at all. To suppose that this overthrow of the state restores the "new equality" is to say that starving oneself shall cure one of his hunger. Madness, it can be found, exists in even the most well-kept of men.

c. the POPULAR NECESSITY to reject POPULAR GOVERNMENT

Thus the popular necessity — and by such a phrase the author means, the action that will most benefit the continued rule of law, the continued peace and happiness that has returned to reign over the realm, and the continued good and just Government under which we live — is to reject such horrid, disorganized, and meaningless suggestions. For who is to demand how we organize ourselves, behave, and act, when they themselves demand such from a position of meaningless rhetoric and emotion, devoid of all proper standards of discourse and rhetoric? It cannot be denied, sure, that they do enjoy their rights, and they may continue to do so, as subjects of His Majesty the King; yet how are they to demand changes from other souls of Mankind who, fashioned in the image of God, cannot yet have those rights violated?

It is perplexing indeed to entertain such a thought, and to imagine, with startling and sobering realization, to find that a great number of His Majesty's subjects have come around to such thinking. Worrying though it may be, the goodness of the current Government, and any Government so conceived under the current constitution, can ensure, with proper encouragement, and with the consent of King Louis, ensure the continued normal relations which all of His Subjects entertain with one another, as well as the gradual yet steady return of economic and social prosperity we once enjoyed long ago.

V. a CONCLUSION: a STRONG REALM is PREDICATED upon STRONG GOVERNMENT.​

To which the author has finally come to the end. The laborious argument having been made: to enjoy the current Constitution, resist the changes the popularists wish to impose upon its content — or to reject the absolute legitimacy of His Majesty the King in totality, which amounts to simple and terrible treason —and enforce the current laws as they exist, rather than an arcane interpretation of them in favor of severely and irreparably altering the social and political relations of His Majesty's Subjects — there now remains little to be said of the subject. In both respects, but especially in the one upon which the author has spoken the most, changes to the Constitution as promulgated by the great and good King Louis XVIII are to be denied, rejected, and in all other cases vehemently opposed and fought against if national liberty is to be maintained. It scarce must be repeated over the course of the many debates sure to come in this Government, yet it is sure to come nonetheless: that the trend toward republicanism and anarchism are one and the same, and that the character of French history, and the history of his Kingdom, our King, and our Constitution, demands a respect to the current system, lest the turmoil of 1792 be repeated, to a degree far worse than was experienced in those terrible and bloody days.

 

[Syriana]

Journal des Débats Politiques et Littéraires

---​

Considerations
on
the Prospects of Peace
for France and Europe;

By a Soldier of the Dauphiné.​

Nature abhors a vacuum; even the most trenchant anarchy shall eventually be undone by its own vicissitudes, and good order shall surely return. This is as much a lesson in politics as in physics. After a long and lamentable exile, His Majesty has returned to France and his people, and the shining glory of the Royal House is once more proudly displayed above the nation. Whether man has wandered abroad for this past quarter-century, or suffered in silence under the boots of Bonaparte and his bloodthirsty predecessors, he is as one united in his welcome of this grand restoration.

There is no surer testament to its necessity – indeed, to its regrettable belatedness – than the discontents which afflict our France. This country was once the envy of Europe. Alas, twenty-five years of turpitude have reduced its stature, enervated its industries, and enfeebled its people. When man gazes in despair at the present, he finds solace in the wisdom of the ancients. Myself, I find particular revelation in this phrase of Tacitus, “To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.” No more succinct indictment could be made of Bonaparte’s despotism.

There are many injuries which must be addressed, both political and economic. I have great faith that His Majesty’s Government that shall deliver solace. But there is one issue which is so pressing that it rises above all others and demands our immediate attention. It is the prospect of peace. If one were to define peace as the mere absence of war, then France should be peaceful. But it is not, and she is not. Vast swathes of our national territory remain under the annexation of foreign powers. Paris herself is prostrate before them. Such arrangements as had been made for peace were scuppered by the traitor’s return, in his last parting shot to damnable posterity. Further negotiations beckon, and the fate of France hangs in the balance.

One can understand the vengeance of the Allied Powers against France. Yet surely they must understand that the culprits have already been apprehended. There is no justice in punishing the French people for the actions of a despotic cabal; nor in injuring His Majesty’s Government with such penalties that shall excessively constrict its finance. Both must be defended from the retribution appropriately afforded to the Bonapartist party.

If France is to at last achieve peace, it must be a peace with honour and dignity, and in recognition of the recovery of the Royal House. We must separate those criminal elements who bear responsibility for our defeat from the body of the nation, so that we might not be tarnished by association. Only then may we retrieve peace from the victors of Europe.

The following solutions are prescribed for the nation. First, those who have doubly indemnified themselves in the last hundred days must bear the weight of justice. These oath-breakers and recidivists swore loyalty to the Royal House; their betrayal cannot go unanswered. Moreover, by subjecting them to the full penalty of the law, it is demonstrated to the Allied Powers that France shall not harbour the remnants of the Bonapartist regime. This can only be to our credit in negotiations.

Second, His Majesty’s Government should be pristine of any influence of the former regime. There are certain public officers who have redeemed themselves, albeit belatedly, by their fealty to His Majesty and their facilitation of the grand restoration. However, in the eyes of the Allied Powers, these men are still irretrievably stained by their service to Bonaparte. It is necessary to procure new men for public service – men of irreproachable reputation, whose motives are beyond question. Only such men might go before the Allied Powers and demand the peace of equals. Their task shall still be arduous, but their success shall be more guaranteed by the absence of discredited characters.

In these times of troubles, we repose our faith in His Majesty, who shall surely deliver us from our present distress. Just as war was the undoing of Bonapartism, let peace be the crowning glory of the House of Bourbon.

A Soldier.​

 

[loup99]

La Liste des Joueur

((Small remark on spelling, this should be in plural with an "s" at the end of "joueur"))

 

[TJDS]

Journal des Débats Politiques et Littéraires
---

An Essay
on
The Feeding, Works and Reproduction of Population;
I - Between Violent Food Competition and Overreproduction, the Golden Mean

By a Loyal Servant of His Royal Majesty the King

​

The Nature of Man is one of Violence and the Nature of Earth is one of Scarcity. These sad facts form the basis of this voyage into the workings of population and the threats they thereby pose to the Divine and Established Order of Interactions between all those that wander this earth and within the boundaries of the Kingdom of France. As previous observers of this most important subject have immediately recognized, the conflicting facts of Man's Violence and the Earth's Scarcity mean that as the production of foodstuffs decreases relative to the demanding population, the nature of and the destruction from the competition for these resources expands into unacceptable forms. However, most observers of this subject cease their inquisition with this conclusion, blinded by the horrors compounded within it, and fail to see or accept the immediacy of their just conclusion.

For, as any informed reader shall agree, the threat of famine has been faced before in this nation, with the subsequent increase in food prices creating quarrel and unrest in the parts of France where self-sufficiency in the production of foodstuffs is lowest, urban areas. And from this increase of prices in these densely populated areas of low food self-sufficiency beyond a level where the affected can keep themselves alive comes an increase in food competition so exponential that its competitors are forced by their nature and their survival instincts to resort to wolf-like tendencies against each other and, most harmfully, the State. This disintegration of authority and the established order of things is not only harmful to the direct victims of this carnivorous behaviour towards fellow man, but as a fire in a dry cornfield consume everything in its path, thereby depriving itself of resources and causing its own extinction, taking with it the valuable corn, produced by the toil of good men, and removing the structures of production and usefulness from this world.

Following from the realization that unbounded food competition caused by shortages of supply in densely populated areas of low food self-sufficiency is the most dangerous threat towards the States and Monarchs of Europe, as they discriminate not in their destruction between the Frenchman or the Russian, men of lesser stature may conclude that the reversion towards autarky is the solution to this great threat. However, these men may lack the knowledge or have failed to realize that besides the fact that France imports all of its sugar, spices and many of its best weapons, the Monarchy derives its temporal strength, the capital to maintain our Armed Forces and infrastructure to maintain our Kingdom, from the dependence of these urban areas on the Monarchy to protect it and in times of crisis, feed it.

Other men of lesser stature may conclude that laissez-faire must be the answer, however - although the government inaction in affairs may in various economic areas may be of great benefit to all in the Kingdom - this is not the policy to be pursued in the area of foodstuffs as it may lead to two different but equally disastrous scenarios. First, as officials of the Kingdom imprudently maintained this policy during the food shortages of the 1780s and 1790s, the shortages of foodstuffs caused the competition for them to rise to such ungodly extends that violent mobs scavenging for food openly ignored the King's Order and eventually greatly attributed to its most unfortunate and counterproductive downfall. Second, at times of great overproduction of foodstuffs, the poorer parts of the population will, unlike at times of great economic duress, be able to reproduce far beyond responsible and acceptable extent, thereby contributing to the future putative lack of sustainability of improvements in a society's standard of living, as eloquently put forward by Monsieur Thomas Robert Malthus.

It should therefore logically follow from the national interests of states, that not the reversion towards autarky, or the establishment of laissez-faire policies, but the regulation of the amount and price of foodstuffs should be our Kingdom's principal policy, as the Representatives of His Majesty's Government shall be able to find equilibrium between violent food competition and excessive population growth and thereby strengthen the temporal stability of this Kingdom, beyond the petty and violent nature of Man and the scarce and capricious nature of Earth.

A Loyal Servant.​

 

[Dadarian]

The Death of a Liberal Printer
​

"Voir l'imprimante, le menteur, les abats de Napoléon!"* cried de Couteau as he cast the literate woman to the ground.

"Voir l'imprimante, le menteur, les abats de Napoléon!" cried the mob, intimidating the nearby detachment of police.

"Où sont tes mots diaboliques maintenant?"** cried de Couteau as his bludgeon first connected with the woman's skull.

"Où sont tes mots diaboliques maintenant?" cried the mob, as their bludgeons joined the first.

"Les parfums ne protègent pas les Bonsapartistes de moi!"*** screamed de Couteau, as a fire was set to the woman's printshop.

"Les parfums ne protègent pas les Bonsapartistes de moi!" responded the mob, as they threw the body into the cleansing fire.

-
​

*See the printer, the liar, the offal of Napoleon!
**Where are your devilish words now?
***Perfumed words won't protect Bonapartists from me!

 

[sealy300]

Name: Fr. Jacque Cean Hamon Br. Jak Carwyn Hamon
Born: 8th of June 1767 (aged 46)
Party: Doctrinaires (technocratique faction) [avec sympathies napoléoniste]
Profession: Deputy for Finistere, Breton poet, engineer & architect [degree incomplete], absentee landlord.
Department: Finisterre
Alma Mater: L'Université de Paris
Background:
Born in Brest to the son of a [non noble] landlord in Brest, Jak was sent to Paris to study at the age of 18 in the art of architecture and minoring in engineering to facilitating his art. As such, he was only 4 years into his studies when the revolution began. Not particularly loyal to the ancien regime, but not entirely opposed to it he tried to keep himself out of it. However, as it grew more violent he saw both the failure of aristocratic autocracy and of popular democracy: especially after his university was destroyed by . He believed there must be some possible method to organise society based along enlightenment lines of logic, empiricism and science. He left Paris and returned to his native Brest, where he took over the administration of his father's ands as he suddenly grew ill. He applied what he called the "empirical administration" to improve yields and to organise public works. He was glad at the news of the ascension of Napoleon, seeing him as an embodiment of his technocratic ideals; oping he would apply the army organisation to that of running the country. However due to financial reasons, he had to continue to with his work in Brest, especially as the British blockade hurt the income of the properties under his purview. Now the war is over, Napoleon is gone and the old Bourbons are back: and Jacque has a chance to take his concepts of technocracy to Paris; the city which he once was a part of, and restore France to some semblance of prosperity. Neither aristocratic, nor democratic, he has a new plan for decentralised technocratic rule: with a figurehead monarch at its helm. Time will tell if his ideals will gain traction or if he will become another victim of revolution and its reaction.

 

[DensleyBlair]

Alexandre Cazal

​

Prosper-Alexandre Miot Cazal de Bissy (also known as Alexandre Cazal; b. 3 August 1784) was a man of letters in Restoration-era France.

Born in Port-au-Prince, Prosper-Alexandre was the illegitimate son of Louis-Prosper Cazal de Bissy and Marie-Colette Miot. Cazal's father, a minor member of the French nobility, lived and worked as a commissioner in the colony of Saint-Domingue. His mother was a freewoman of colour. In official documentation, Cazal was described during childhood as “un mulâtre”.

Cazal was raised by his mother until the outbreak of slave rebellions in 1791, when his father sought him out and took him into his care for fear of his safety. From birth, he had been known as Prosper-Alexandre Miot, though went by Cazal in official records after entering his father's care. Following the departure of Sonthonax in 1795, Cazal was taken back to France to be raised as a member of the nobility. He was educated by his father at Bissy-sur-Fley in Franche-Comte from the age of ten. Despite being hampered by growing up during the Revolution, his schooling was comprehensive, based principally on the work of French writers such as Montaigne, Diderot, Rousseau and Voltaire.

Cazal was unable to attend university in Paris, the colleges having been suppressed during the Revolution. At the urging of his father, keen that he should take up a role within respectable society, he enlisted in the military in 1803 as a private soldier in what would become the Grande Armée. Despite Napoléon's personal distrust of Black officers, under the army's meritocratic values Cazal achieved several promotions nevertheless. Having served in campaigns throughout Germany, including at Austerlitz, Cazal was commissioned by the end of 1805. In 1806, holding the rank of capitaine in Davout's III Corps, Cazal marched into Berlin following the Battle of Auerstadt. He followed the Corps into Poland, before receiveing orders to accompany Napoléon's troops in Spain in 1808, by now having achieved the rank of chef d'escadron.

Cazal, however, never made it to the Iberian Peninsula. Whilst en route, on leave in Paris, Cazal was victim of an unfortunate incident that saw him relieved from active duty. Having taken a woman to the opera, Cazal was harassed by a fellow officer also in attendance. Protesting his honour, Cazal and his attacker ended up in an altercation. Both men were taken into custody, though released the next day without charges being pressed. Cazal was subsequently reassigned to work within the Ministry of War under Henri Clarke.

Frustrated by his experiences of prejudice within the army, Cazal became disillusioned by the reach of Napoleonic égalité, bitter that meritocracy seemed only to extend so far. He began work on a series of tracts denouncing the limits of equality in France, though refrained from publishing wary of the wisdom in criticising the Bonapartist regime in 1810.

When the imperial regime collapsed, Cazal was ambivalent. He was sceptical that the Bourbon monarchs would do more to improve France and considered the eventual constitutional charter to be a weak compromise. He continued briefly to work as a civil servant at the Ministry of War under the Bourbon government, never having been offered the chance to resume active duty following the opera incident six years prior, though soon resigned after being offered a job as an essayist for the newly-formed liberal journal Le Censeur. He created something of a stir in Parisian society when he serialised, finally, his essays agitating in favour of greater meritocracy in French society between November 1814 and February of the following year. This put him in a perilous position during the Hundred Days, having come out definitively against the Bonapartists. He remained in Paris, writing neither in favour of the Bourbon monarchs or returned emperor but more generally on subjects such as constitutionalism and political science.

Politically, Cazal could be considered something of a liberal Doctrinaire, though maintained an independent scepticism of the Bourbon regime. His principle concern, as evident in his writing throughout the Bourbon restoration, was ensuring that Restoration France does not succumb to those siren voices clamouring for a return to life before 1789.

In May 1817, he achieved international fame with the publication of his debut novel Aporie, which was described by liberal essayist Benjamin Constant as “an artifact of great value”.

Works​

Novels​

• Aporie; Une histoire personelle (1817)
• Messidor; A Study of Provincial Life (1821)

Anthologies​

• La Perle (1819)

Non-fiction​

• Accounts from Travels in Rural France (1822)

 

[Dadarian]

Toulouse Marches for Execution
​

The green cockades of the Verdets flittered as the mass of humanity marched forward through Toulouse. Some gathered to join in the fun, some gathered to not be persecuted by the mob, but most of all they gathered to cry for the execution of Marshal Ney.

"Mort à Ney!"* was the cry that ran through the streets.

"Mort à Ney!" was the cry that gathered the Verdets about them.

"Mort à Ney!" was the cry to the fifes and drums brought home or looted into private collection.

The mass marched to and fro in Toulouse, demonstrating their will for a just end to a man without honour, God, or place. Execution was called for, but would anyone listen to th green flags that represented so much death in the South?

-
​

*Death to Ney!

 

[Eid3r]

Les élus sont ceux qui aiment Dieu de tout leur cœur et mènent une vie qui lui est agréable.

Mes élus entendent ma voix et ne s’endurcissent pas le cœur.

The Bible

Several days before, in Auch (Gers)

Auch, c. 1840​

The Bishop of Montauban had travelled across the Gers in the anticipation of the election to the Chamber of Deputies, an election in which he had been coerced by the strong opinion of the populace, to stand as candidate and carry the collective will to Paris, a far-away city whose reality was always understood with a mix of awe and horror by the fair folk of the Gers.

Helped by his deep knowledge of the region, which he crisscrossed for years as a wandering friar and during his various church functions, he had reached even the most remote hamlets, recognizing the faces of his good parishioners of old, but also feeling the heavy void, the giant chasm created by those who were gone.

He stood in front of Cathédrale Sainte-Marie, the former seat of the late Archbishops of Auch. He resented, like the populace, quite vividly the dismantlement of the Archdiocese in 1801 by the central power in Paris. The region, which had never been considered a hotbed of the revolution, was deemed dangerous and under the thumb of the Church. Why would one consider that a problem always eluded to the mind of the prelate.

He greeted the pious souls one by one as they exited the Cathedral following the end of Mass until a large gathering circled him. He slowly climbed several stairs as to be seen by all, and then he spoke loudly and firmly.

“My dear brothers and sisters! Our beloved King is back! Like the gardener, he will nurture our fair Kingdom toward prosperity and peace, as did the House of Bourbon for centuries. While we may collectively have a long breath of relief, knowing that the horrors of the Usurpation are behind us, we must not indulge in complacency. Our King needs you. Louis the XVIII cannot, by himself, restore our realm to greatness. Soon will come the time where today’s sycophant will besiege his resolve with honeyed words and dubious intentions.”

The crowd clapped in approval. Some “C’est vrai! Il dit vrai!” are heard.

« An election has been called, to assemble in Paris a Chamber of Deputies coming from all the fair departments of France. The Gers shall be represented, and the Gers has an important responsibility. You are the true vigils, the true guardians of this nation’s soul. You, honest peasants, industrious men of peace, are not affected by the entrapment of luxury and gluttony that have degraded our public morality for so many years. You must ensure that a strong contingent of Deputies, hailing from the fair regions like ours, are sent to Paris to restore our Kingdom’s glory, and offer his Majesty the King the tools to realize the grand design he has, by the grace of God Almighty, for our humble and pious nation.”

He paused for a moment, letting his words sink into the heart of the brave populace. He knew quite well that only the moneyed gentry would be allowed to vote, but he also knew that the small contribution of the fair folk would amount to critical votes to be “purchased” by allowing good and loyal souls to take part in the election.

“You all know me. I am a man of no earthly ambition, devoted to the salute of all. I am not standing here today by my own volition. Countless of your have pressed me to run, and I see God’s will in your calling. Should you elect me, I will honor the Gers and contribute to the restoration of our public morality, by carrying your honest words in Paris. Our beloved Gers can lead the way, just like you, fair citizens of Auch, to a policy of national redemption from our sins.”

“The road to prosperity unavoidably passed through the salvation of our souls for the sins committed in our collective name during the usurpation. We all know those who have been chased away from their estates, their lands, their houses. Their names have been intertwined with ours for centuries. We must welcome them back into the warm embrace of our collective life and correct the wrongdoings toward them. Our beloved church also fell victims to the folly of the Usurper. Despoiled from its land, which has always been put to use for the collective good, it has been gravely attacked. I am quite certain that you wish, just as I do, to see it restored to glory. That the mills and farms of the Archdiocese be once again manned and produce the bread that keeps us all fed through winter.”


“ I shall not harangue you further. I know you shall do your duty. I am proud of you, as always. Sons of the Gers, your duty awaits!”

He stepped down toward the crowd, cheered loudly by the majority of those assembled, some more literate skeptics walking away grumbling.

 

[Korona]

FROM THE DESK OF GÉNÉRAL DE DIVSION FRANÇOIS BOURIER
Comte de Pontécoulant

​

ADDRESSED TO PRÉSIDENT DU CONSEIL CHARLES MAURICE DE TALLEYRAND-PÉRIGORD
Prince of Talleyrand​

Your Excellency,

I write to you today on a matter most prudent, a matter that is most directly involved with the maintenance of law, order, and national security in our fair Kingdom. Law and Order are the bedrock upon which any society is built, and upon receiving reports from the South, North, and rest of France that is not directly under His Royal Majesty's rule, I am most concerned for the status of our modern society.

In where the law has broken down, where order has been most disregarded, all reports point to Toulouse and southern France. I am most worried if the state of our Kingdom is so dire in which gangs are the primarily executors of the law, or the lack thereof. Whilst the goals and aims of these "verdets" may be to ensure a France free from the Bonapartism of years previous, it is paramount that His Royal Majesty asserts himself to these "verdets". They claim to be the Kings of Toulouse, whilst there is yet one King in France, and one King only. I urge Your Excellency to deal with these brigands and vagrants with the utmost expediency, as to establish law and order as the guiding principle of our new France, and to assert His Royal Majesty's dominance throughout the Kingdom.

I must also wish to convey my immediate desire for reform in the Royal Army, for the threat of defection is always nigh. Napoleon's impact and the respect and admiration he garnered from the Grande Armée can not be understated, and whilst many French soldiers have returned to the farm, there are still those who whisper of restoration, or outright rebellion. I believe that this lack of loyalty to His Royal Majesty can be attributed to the overarching organizational failures in the army. With His Royal Majesty's just and due restoration to the throne, He, in all His wisdom, disestablished the army, making it a much more loosely organized force. To rectify these failures, I highly urge Your Excellency to advise His Royal Majesty in reorganizing the army in a much more central command.

I do not presume that my advice ought to have any weight or advice with a man as experienced and wise as yourself, and yet I must voice my concerns, or I fear France will fall prey to the forces that saw the rise of Napoleon and the Revolution of years past. I understand the complexities and challenges of your situation, and I place myself at your humble command, in order to better our Kingdom. Long live His Royal Majesty the King of France.

Your Humble Servant,

​

 

[loup99]

((Private thoughts))

While some were tempted of radicalising further, François-Jacques Ratinet, decided to remain a critic in the shadows and support underground activity. Revolution was bound to happen sooner or later, he thought, and then he would be on the barricades with the people of Paris, as in 1648 during the Fronde. No one wanted this old order which had usurped its power from another usurping force, that of the tyrant "emperor" Bonaparte. What those in power didn't understand was that France had changed forever after those days at the Bastille in 1789. No old charter could change that, and it was felt across the country amongst the working population. Yet, what role should he play in the uproar to come? What role can a man within Paris play in the chaos that followed the fall of Bonapartism? One matter is certain, and that is that it is always possible to bide your time. But was it desirable now? Terror had already spread to the very corners of the restored kingdom amongst those who had been opponents of the royalty.

 

[LordTempest]

Le Censeur
ou
Examen
des Actes et ouvrages
qui tendent à détruire ou à consolider
la constitution de l'État

A Warning
Against the Perils of
"Economic Bonapartism"
Both Domestic and Foreign
Alain Augustin Tremblay
​

There is a spectre haunting France; the spectre of Bonapartism. No, contrary to popular belief, it does not consist of shadowy cabals of Bonapartists lurking in the shadows, seeking to overthrow Le Roi or his government. Nor does it lie with the fictitious threat of dissident generals such as the Marechal Ney or even the Little Corsican himself seeking to embark upon a second Hundred Days' Campaign to seize the apparatus of state. No, this threat lies with those aristocrats, physiocrats and statesmen -- many of them loyal and well-meaning individuals, no doubt -- who seek to exploit the contemporary crisis in order to return to an economic policy of autarky and protection reminiscent of that which held sway during the days of the old Corsican regime. In short, a return to "Economic Bonapartism."

What are the effects of this encroaching Economic Bonapartism, and perhaps more pertinently, what are the dangers? To those with long memories of the revolutionary period, they will recall that the scarcity of basic foodstuffs led to an exponential increase in prices. First the urban poor, then the farmers, members of the bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoise and the soldiering classes were all priced out of the bread market; their starvation led to anger, anger led to riots and ultimately, riots led to revolution, and France's suffering. The steady supply of bread (moreso even than circuses) is paramount to the maintenance of the stable and orderly state, and there is no surer way to increase the price of bread (and thus inflame public opinion as a consequence) than to especially tax it. Likewise, there is no surer way to lower the price of bread (and thus preserve order and stability) than to open France fully to Continental markets for wheat and flour, amongst other essential goods.

Many will assume unfairly that the question of tariffs, taxation and trade and the supply of foodstuffs to be a purely economic question, and thus only of concern to the Smithians, Ricardites and Neckeristes who are fond of debating such matters. In truth, the question of Economic Bonapartism is not merely a domestic question, but one which goes to the very heart of France's position in the unfolding "Concert of Europe." Bonaparte himself was undone in no small part thanks to his infamous Continental Blockade, which sought to weaken Britain to the benefit of Imperial France and her allies, but instead weakened her allies at the expense of France. Britain remained true to her free trade faith, and her economy reaped the rewards, while the economies of Austria, Russia and the French client states all faltered due to the loss of Britain as a trading partner. The resentment which grew and festered as a result between France and her allies led to the downfall of the Anti-British Coalition and the rise of an Anti-French one, which in turn led to the demise of the Corsican regime.

One may well ask what relevance do such warnings hold in the Post-Revolutionary age? France may no longer be in a state of war, but she is far from being in a state of peace. Instead, France is in a state of perpetual siege: her enemies are no longer conquering or invading armies, but hostile creditors, unsympathetic diplomats and the vengeful powers to whom they serve. The current regime, like the Corsican one which preceded it, must remain vigilant against foreign attempts to undermine it by threat of indirect economic and diplomatic, rather than by direct military, force. France today is thus as hungry for allies and commercial partners as her people were hungry for bread a generation earlier. And as with bread, there is no surer means to antagonise her potential friends and partners than to tax or otherwise exclude their goods, and no surer way to earn potential friends and allies than to purchase and prosper from them.

It is thus essential that France remain open for business, and that Economic Bonapartism be as resoundingly and decisively rejected by the government and people of France as its equally odious political variant. Trade both to and from continental Europe is paramount to ensuring France's security, both at home and abroad.

-- A. A. Tremblay

​

 

[Marschalk]

Claude Louis Marie de Beauvilliers, 7th Duke of Saint-Aignan, Peer of France b. 5 November 1770; Loir-et-Che Kingdom of France

Politician, Soldier, Aristocrat, Utraroyalist Member of the Chamber of Peers
​

Claude Louis Marie de Beauvilliers is a scion of an old noble family that has for a long time owned lands near the Cher River in Berry province and was close to various Bourbon monarchs. The first duke-peer of Saint-Aignan has received his title in 1663 from Louis XIV, the Sun King, for his devotion to the court party during the Fronde.

The father to Claude, Duke Paul, was not, however, extremely active in politics. Being appointed to the court office of the First Gentleman of the Bedchamber de Roi, he has also, since the later years of the reign of King Louis XV, held the governorship of Havre-de-Grace. However, despite these offices, Duke Paul mostly busied himself with managing his lands in Saint-Aignan and participating in various social events such as balls and hunts.

Born as a second son, Claude was not expected to inherit the title. His future (as his father thought) was to pursue a military career - and therefore he received the appropriate education. At first he was taught by varioust private tutors, mostly of ecclesiastical rank, however, in 1784 he was admitted into Ecole Militaire and attended it for two years, remarkably sharing classrooms with young Napoleone Bonaparte.

However, due to family connections, Claude began his career in a much more illustrious way than his Corsican classmate. While Napoleon had to receive a commission in a not-so-prestigious La Ferre artillery regiment, the young Saint-Aignan, after graduation, received the rank of sous lieutenant within the Regiment of the Gendarmes of the Guard and became aide-de-campe to Louis Stanislas Xavier, the Count of Provence. He spent three years in the household of the future King of France, leading the life a typical aristocratic guardsman - hunting skirts and deer, playing cards and dice and overall enjoying his youth.

He did not now hat very soon his life would change in a most catastrophic way.

In the beginning of 1789 Claude received an offer from his uncle, Charles-Eugene, Prince de Lambesc, to transfer to his regiment, the Royal Allemand Dragoons, as a captain. Leading a company at the age of nineteen very much appealed to Claude - and he readily agreed. Soon, upon command of his uncle, the young officer, together with his dragoons, participated in the clashes with the revolutionary mob that has occupied Tuileries Gardens, personally sabring several rioters. The situation escalated, the August decrees were passed - and in a month after that his elder brother,Victor, who served in the reestablished Royal Muskateers, was shot in the streets. Then Claude started to realize that the country he loced was falling apart.

While the Allemand Dragoons were sent to a frontier garrison, Claude, bitter because of the death of his brother and the way the revolutionaries treated the King, managed to remain in Paris. He joined the Chevaliers du poignard (Knights of the dagger), a secret society, aimed at helping King Louis XVI to restore his power, got involved in a conspiracy connected to the Kings flight to Varrenes. After that Claude had to leave the country. In 1791 he crossed Switzerland and joined the Emigre Army of Prince de Conde. And then he received the horrifying news - his father, the Duke of Saint-Aignan, was guillotined for maintaining correspondence with the imprisoned King.

This is how Claude became the head of his house - his face covered in tears and his mouth vowing to avenge his father and punish the traitors, even if it costs him his life.

He spent nearly nine years in the Army of the Prince (and its remnants later on), fighting in Swabia and Bavaria, then being stationed in Poland, when the Prince of Conde put his army under Russian protection, then serving under Field Marshal Alexander Suvorov in the Rhine. The death of Louis XVI and his closest relatives and lack of any real progress on the part of the Royalists made Claude more and more pessimistic. He also suffered from lack of funds When in 1800 the Army was finally disbanded, he decided to join the Russian service, being offered a commission there with the help of his old acquaintance, the Duke of Richelieu.

The Emperor of Russia. Alexander I, was glad to have a holder of such a distinguished title in his service. He gave Claude a colonelcy in the Regiment of the Horse - one of the oldest in the Imperial Guard. Later Claude received the command of the Belarussian Hussar Regiment and married a rich Polish heiress, Countess Anne Potozky, solving his financial problems once and for all. During these times he, however, continued to be an active royalist agent in St. Petersburg, maintaining correspondence with the Counte of Provence, Count of Artois and the Prince of Conde, doing everything to persuade the Russian Tsar to back the Bourbons against Napoleon and his regime.

In 1806-1810 the Duke of Saint-Aignan participated in the Russian-Turkish War, first leading the Belarussian hussars and then commanding a cavalry brigade. He was wounded, served meritoriously in the sieges of Izmail and battle of Bucharest and was awarded high military honors, becoming a major general and a knight of of the Order of St George, the top Russian military order.

An enemy of Napoleon, the Duke of Saint-Aignan, funnily enough, did not participate in the war that toppled the usurpers throne. In years 1811 - 1814 he was the Governor of Pskov, dividing his time between various administrative duties and the management of his wifes Polish and Lithuanian manors. However he was charged with raising the Pskovan militia, as well as taking care of the wounded, organizing hospitals and so on.

When the Allied forces occupied Paris in 1814, the Duke eagerly travelled there together with the Count of Artois, finally taking off the foreign uniform and donning the colors of the House of Bourbon. He was rumored to be one of the people who helped the Count of Artois, during his regency of the Kingdom, to create a royalist secret police reporting to him. During the Hundred Days he was once again dispatched to the Court of Alexander I - as a temporary Ambassador - to inform the Tsar of the insurrection. During the second Bonapartist usurpation Claude was steadfastly loyal to the King and, upon the end of hostitilies, was rewarded with the Order of the Holy Spirit and a place in the Chamber of Peers.

While being certainly a Catholic traditionalist and a devoted ultraroyalist, the Duc de Saint-Aignan is not a typical remnant of Ancient Regime. Many hardships he has suffered, as well as his long service in the absolutist and bureaucratic Russia, made him rather cynical and grim in his approaches towards power and authority. He does not like both what he calls "mad whims of the mob " and the corrupt oligarchic rule of the rich His ideal is a well administrated and centralized state, where all power emanates from one source - the Crown - and all other organs of state should be dependent from it, achieving its aims, not setting its own. While he is fiercely proud of his noble house and values aristocracy, the Duke puts ideology above class - and believes that at these time one must be judged by his loyalties, and that the disloyal should be severely punished, even if they are of highest origins.


Honours and Decorations:

Knight of the Order of St,George, IV Class (Russian Empire- 1809)

Knight of the Order of St. Vladimir, III Class, with Swords (Russian Empire- 1810)

Knight of the Order of St. Stanislaus, I Class, with a Star (Russian Empire - 1811)

Knight of the Order of the Holy Spirit ( the Kingdom of France -1815)


Military Ranks and Positions

Sous lieutenant, then lieutenant, Gendarmes de la garde, aide-de-campe to the Count of Provence (Kingdom of France, 1786 - 1789)

Captain, the Royal Allemand Dragoon Regiment (Kingdom of France, 1789 - 1791)

Captain, Armée des Émigrés (1791 - 1793)

Major, Armée des Émigrés (1793 - 1794)

Lieutenant Colonel, Armée des Émigrés (1794 - 1795)

Colonel, Armée des Émigrés (1795 - 1800)

Colonel, the Regiment of the Horse, Imperial Guard (Russian Empire, 1800 - 1803)

Commanding Colonel, 7th Belorussian Hussar Regiment (Russian Empire, 1805-1807)

Major General, 3d Cavalry Brigade, 7th Cavalry Division (Russian Empire, 1807-1810)

Major General, His Imperial Majesties Military Household (Russian Empire, 1810 - 1814)

General de division, French Royal Army (Kingdom of France, 1814 - ??)


Public Positions held:

Governor of the Pskov Province (Russian Empire, 1810 - 1814)

Member of the Chamber of Peers (Kingdom of France, 1814 - Present)

Minister of Justice (Kingdom of France, 23rd of September 1815 - ??)

 

[m.equitum]

Writings of the Prince de Polignac

Publications
An account of the Battle of Borodino
A draft proposal for the recovery of St. Domingue
The Charge of the Bachkirs at the Battle of Leipzig
Clotilde, Queen of the Franks
Memorandum on the Principle of Restorative Intervention
The Electoral Quadrille
A Tryst on the River Neva
The Polignac Diamonds​

Correspondence
To the Marquis de Valence regarding the formation of Institute of Military History (1)
To the Bishop of Montauban regarding the budget under consideration
To the Marquis de Valence regarding the formation of Institute of Military History (2)
To the Duc de Richelieu on the Proposed Liquidation of the Ecclesiastical Temporalities
To the Bishop of Montauban regarding the Proposed Liquidation of Ecclesiastical Temporalities
To the Marquis de Valence regarding the Institute of Military History (with postscript re: Fouché)
To the Count d'Artois regarding assorted Matters of Interest
To Victor Durand regarding the Famine in France
To the Marquis de Valence regarding Liberal Unrest in Spain
To the Prince von Metternich regarding the Liberal Agitation in Spain and Two Sicilies
To the Marquess Castlereagh regarding the Principle of Restorative Intervention
To the Marquis de Valence with a Precis on Foreign Policy
To the Marqis de Valence regarding the Budget Controversy
To the Duc de Laval regarding the Situation in Spain
To the Duc de Valence regarding the Presidential Post
To Tsar Alexander regarding Diplomatic Matters
To Monsieur Durand regarding the Greek Revolt
To the Duke of Wellington regarding the situation in Spain and Greece
To the Duc du Laval regarding the Situation in Spain
To the Duc de Valence regarding the Situation in Spain
To the Duke of Wellington requesting a Commitment to Neutrality
To the Duc de Sully regarding the Situation in Spain
To Monsieur de Rothschild regarding the Budget
To Monsieur de Rothschild regarding the Budget (II)
To the Comte de Pontécounat regarding Military Finances
To the Archbishop of Reims regarding the Behaviour of Soldiers in Spain
To Tsar Alexander I of Russia regarding the Greek Revolt
To Prince Menshikov for Old Times' Sake
To the Duque del Infantado regarding the Treaty of Madrid
To the Conde de Herida-Spinola regarding the Treaty of Madrid
To the Archbishop of Toledo
To the Duc de Sully, Precis on Negotiations in Spain​

Voting Record
Legislation proposed during the Premiership of the Comte de Dhuizon
Election of 1816
Legislation proposed during the Second Premiership of the Comte de Dhuizon
Legislation proposed during the First Premiership of the Marquis de Valence
Elections 1821
Legislation proposed during the First Premiership of the Duc de Sully
Vote on the Expulsion of Manuel from the Chamber of Deputies
Legislation proposed during the First Premiership of the Duc de Sully (II)​

 

[TJDS]

Journal des Débats Politiques et Littéraires
---

An Essay
on
The Feeding, Works and Reproduction of Population;
II - The Competition between and Strength of Nations
By a Loyal Servant of His Royal Majesty the King​

Having in my previous article accepted the principle that it is in the national interest of nations to adequately feed their population as to prevent the collapse of the King's Order into Anarchy, while maintaining a controllable population base, the population of a nation becomes both a means with which to acquire and protect lands and abilities to produce foodstuffs and an end, which with said foodstuffs is fed. This shall, however, mean that although internally the nations of Europe shall maintain peaceful and stable interaction with their subjects, externally the acquisition of lands and more efficient means of production of foodstuffs shall dominate their interaction with each other. Population shall be of vital importance within this frame, as growth of one nation's population relative to another's disturb the equilibrium and shall necessitate the transfer, via most likely less than peaceful methods, of lands from one nation to another, as the non-expansion of the nation with the larger population shall lead to domestic food shortages, food competition and eventual collapse of the existing order.

To prevent this future from occurring, all nations of Europe should either engage in a serious effort not only to maintain the Divine Monarchies that afford stability to the people in a moral and spiritual sense, but also the population growth, which should at no moment exceed the nation's ability to provide - either through trade or increased national production - for its citizens in basic foodstuffs at any time. If a nation fails in this task of primary importance in a time of expanding populations and means of fielding large and destructive warfare, it is inevitably responsible for the incitement of anarchy in the relations between states and in the relations of its subjects with one another.

However, this raises an important question, how does a Kingdom with a credible claim to be the strongest power on the Continent, substantiate this claim and increase its own strength, when anything beyond reasonable population growth sustained by effective improvements in either agricultural production or trade volume is a threat to the established order within itself and Europe as a whole? The rationalization of the usage of manpower and the effective usage of labour by said Kingdom. As I have touched upon in my previous essay, the strength of Kingdom lay in its ability to maintain the mutually beneficial relationship between areas of high interdependence and population density, where taxes can be levied and soldiers recruited, and the Kingdom, which can use those taxes to defend said areas from crises, both internal and external. This relationship, which had seen its dawn in the Late Middle Ages, propelled France to a position of great strength in the Thirty Years' War, as few nations could so effectively mobilize their resources as our monarchy. In it lies the future of a strong state, not within the theoretical ability to command enormous amount of resources and manpower like the Russian Czar, but to be practically able to call upon a state, whose structure of governance, together with its subjects, have become rational and whose faults have been bettered by empirical action.

To assure that in this future, France has achieved its best position of strength, we should act now to address the most rational system in our nation and the creator of the rationalizers of the future, our education system. Through comprehensive reforms following a Prussian model, we can introduce the French people to the principles of discipline, ethics and loyalty, while also bestowing upon them the valued basic skills of reading, writing and arithmetic and selecting the best and brightest for further and specialized education in the service of the French State and French society. Through an enlightened, disciplined and controllable population, the basic violent nature of man can be restricted into serving the betterment of mankind and society, rather than the destruction of it and the Divine Natural order.

A Loyal Servant.​

 

[ManuelD'Garkia]

Le Républicain Révolutionaire.
29 Thermidor XXIII

A reasoning of the causes and fails of the Republic and how to not fail again.
​

- To understand why the Republic failed, the first one needs to note is that the Republic was under attack from its conception, and if to that one adds the dire economic situation and the poor morale and equipment of the army, it is obvious why the first mistake was made, fear, fear of the return of the Ancien Régime, of the lost of what they worked so hard to achieve, but by making a mistake, by creating the Comittee of Public Safety, and even more, giving it to Robespierre, they achieved just that, they sold the Republic, not to a king, but to a man the believed himself one, but to a group of men that did worse than one, and in that they sold the Republic.

Lets go deeper on the matter of the Comittee of Public Safety and Robespierre, as I have heard people that dare to defend him even today. I know as much as you all that in that time of great need, with our glorious Republic being under attack on all sides, a Strong government was needed, but one cannot confuse a strong government with a tyranical and dictatorial one, and the last one is what we got, a government whos biggest succes where in the numbers of the excutions they achieved, and the more fracturations in the Republic they caused.

After that, the next fail was the naiveness of the Directory, in which they tried to legitimize the Republic only by military victories, and doing poorly in relieving the harsh economical situation, even worsening it by the hyper-inflation they caused. Of course, I'm not saying that gaining territory, establishing sister republics and defending the Revolution is bad, it is excellent, but as they focused more and more on the exterior, they forgott why the Revolution started, by and for the people, and in forgetting that, they just facilited the entry of a military Messiah, a man who had bringed glory, and now promised to bring internal prosperity, all the things the Directory didn't managed to do on its own.

I will focus the last most notable mistake on not one body, but on the people, yes, all of you, since it was obvious how the Consulate would have ended, and all of you greeted him, once he, as Caesar, crowned himself after defeating his rivals, all of you cheered and where filled with joy as the saviour of France had come, and look at us now, foreign soldiers in our ground, the return of the Ancien Régime, militias killing every non-loyalist, brothers, we have failed France and the Republic, and we need to redeam ourselves.

If we hope to regain our rights, our freedom, our Republic, we need to strike in a fast, strong and decisive way, and we need to form an strong elected government in just a matter of weeks, a government capable of defending us from the outside threats, and at the same time capble of mantaining order while at the same time repecting the rights and freedoms this revolution is centered on.

There are millions of other reasons of why the Republic failed, but those are the most notorious to me, next time we will be writing about how the executive power should be divided on who should conform it.

And remember,

Vive la Révolution, vive la République!

 

[Nax24]

August 10th
1815

We passed through the city of Orleans on the way to Paris yesterday. I was always told growing up that Orleans was the second greatest city in France behind Paris. This was the city that Joan of Arc saved from English besiegers. The weather was not kind to the fall harvest, and the price of bread was slowly rising. Was it not the price of bread that brought the monarchy to kneel in the first place? Regardless, I observed people in line for a bread shipment in the market in my stay in Orleans. When the bread did arrive, there was a large commotion as soldiers pushed past the crowd and seized large quantities of the shipment for themselves. These men spoke German and did not wear the uniforms of French soldiers I have come to observe. These were occupiers. I have heard that the northern parts of the country were occupied by the various allied powers; Russia occupying Paris, the British occupying Normandy, the Prussians occupying down the Sein, and the various German states occupying various chunks. From what I have gathered, these men in Orleans were Bavarians. This is odd to me, for news in England had the Bavarians fighting for Napoleon at first. It was not until Napoleon was defeated in Germany did the Bavarians and their new King switch sides. Does that make them betrayers, or simply opportunists?

Regardless, these occupiers will only spell trouble for the new King in Paris. If what these Bavarian soldiers did in Orleans is widespread across the country, how long before the people turn on the foreigners? Is this occupation going to last a while? Is it even justified? France threw itself back to Napoleon, yes, but does it still deserve this fate?

-Nathanaël Barrande

 

[Firehound15]

*The Count of

((secret))

Late at night, a rider was sent toward the Rhine, with a letter for the recently returned Count of Berstett.

 

[TJDS]

- Private -
Letter to @LordTempest ​

To Monsieur A. A. Tremblay,

It has come to my attention that in a recent article in Le Censeur you disavowed the ideas of protectionism and autarky of which I was also highly critical in my essays in the Journal des Débats Politiques et Littéraires, written under a pseudonym, of course, as to prevent my academic work conflicting with my work as public official. However, the theoretical discussions on the distribution and the methods of distribution of foodstuffs cannot and should not remain uncompounded with empirical evidence and as our Kingdom now struggles with a less than stable supply of foodstuffs, I would like to cooperate with your person on this matter, to reform government policy for the better.

What I personally propose at this moment is the introduction of charter for all merchants wishing to stall their wares on a market. This measure shall not be discriminatory in any way, as our current situation neither allows nor would benefit from such practices, the new capital that this measure shall yield can be used to improve and/or repair the infrastructure from the demanding areas to the supplying areas and with it the ability of farmers to sell their produce at the best possible price on the market, thereby restoring more easily France's economic and social backbone after the destruction of the past years.

I am most interested in your opinion on this matter.

Your Obedient Servant,

Victor Henri Louis Marie Durand,
Préfet du Nord et Citoyen concerné