Should the French Monarchy be Restored?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, and anyone who proposes such a thing is un-American.

I forget, was it the 1st or 2nd French Republic that enabled the American colonies to win their war of independence ?

Enemy of my enemy, lesser of two evils, etc.

The 1st French Republic was a repressive totalitarian regime that could send you to the guillotine for sneezing like a Royalist. The 2nd French Republic was a trojan horse for the resumption of the Bonapartist regime, which was a basically an elective dictatorship. The Third French Republic was both at once an unstable model to carry France through the World Wars and secondly was one of the most repressive colonial regimes.

Let us not act like 19th century French Republic's are so noble construction that a respecting American is obligated by virtue of being American to support.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, and anyone who proposes such a thing is un-American.

I forget, was it the 1st or 2nd French Republic that enabled the American colonies to win their war of independence ?

Enemy of my enemy, lesser of two evils, etc.

The 1st French Republic was a repressive totalitarian regime that could send you to the guillotine for sneezing like a Royalist. The 2nd French Republic was a trojan horse for the resumption of the Bonapartist regime, which was a basically an elective dictatorship. The Third French Republic was both at once an unstable model to carry France through the World Wars and secondly was one of the most repressive colonial regimes.

Let us not act like 19th century French Republic's are so noble construction that a respecting American is obligated by virtue of being American to support.

Napoleonic Emperors were exceedingly popular, and carried more popular support than any democratic government ever has to my knowledge. Napoleon I, at least, was a staunch supporter of liberty and human rights. He and James Madison could have been great allies, if not for Washingtonian isolationism.

"... this and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs."

I used to be a fan of Napoleon and Louis Napoleon. But with time, I came to regard them as dictators. Democracy and liberty are at odds with the notion that you can elect your way into an authoritarian dictatorship, whatever Napoleon's personal views might have been.

Napoleon was also the victim of his own ego and this led to both his downfall and the restoration of the bourbon monarchy.

Anymore I consider Napoleon a parallel for Oliver Cromwell. Both were cut their teeth in wars to preserve a non-monarchical government, both came to power and even had to repress an unruly parliamentary body to do so. Both were very repressive in power and both came to take on powers/titles that led one to wonder whether or not they had backslid to the old regime, splitting the revolutionary movements. Both were followed by Monarchical restorations, beginning first with someone who tried to moderate the extremes and keep things from descending back into chaos (Charles II-Louis XVIII), then with someone who reigned for a few years but were toppled because they weren't as tempered in their actions (James II-Charles X).

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Can I be the King of France?  I'm sure I could forge some documents claiming I was related to Louis XVI.

I wonder if there are any illegitimate descendents of Louis XV, I mean he was after all, "one horny fellow" as Crazy Kal put it.

All existing legitimate Capetians are descended from Louis XIII, the Carlists from Louis XIV and the Orleanists from his brother, who was also one horny fellow and a rather bisexual one at that.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do you really intend to suggest that a constitutional monarchy with a great deal of individual liberty is worse than authoritarian and even semi-authoritarian democracies?

The irony here is that I thought I made quite clear I regard the Napoleonic regimes as the latter far more than the former. That doesn't even get into the kind of foreign policy adventurism that eventually saw France defeated and wrecked as a country, twice.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No. Historically, there have been occasions when the advocates of monarchy have been on the "right side" in comparison to their republican antagonists; this does not change the fact that, as a matter or principle, hereditary rule - whether constitutional or absolute - is inimical to the idea that "all [people] are created equal" and entirely illegitimate as a rational foundation for government.

The French Revolution was a disaster, and France would no doubt have been better off under a constitutional monarchy than under the Committee of Public Safety; today, however, France has a stable republican constitution that manages both to uphold the ideals of democratic equality and avoid guillotining innocent people. Why on earth would we exchange that for a system founded on the premise that some individuals, by virtue of being born to fancy parents, have a God-given right to rule a nation?

Well I wouldn't, but that isn't the point. Had such a situation developed as a stable constitutional monarchy, like say a July Monarchy that survived, progressed and democratized, then today France might have a situation that resembles Britain today. But I think much of this conversation revolves around relative comparisons of a past state to another past state, as opposed to today. In other words, dis thread been hijacked.

My philosophy makes me a strong believer in the republican institutions in America. At the same time I don't think we should export or monopolize just how a democracy should be structured. Though not the case in France, many of these "Republics" are parliamentary democracies with a President instead of a King, some of which are elected by the legislative branch even. I can see some argument to having a non-partisan head of state, that serves to connect the country to tradition and at the same time encourages reason, unity and compromise.

If a country opts for that route and it works, I don't think it is in America's interest to create chaos where it does not exist in the name of some purist interpretation of Jeffersonian Democracy. I think that was a mistake that we made in the past and it ended up causing more repression, turmoil and death then any Constitutional Monarch offending your strict sensibilities. Ironically, one example where that did not happen was under President Truman, the US did not force Hirohito to abdicate.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Do you really intend to suggest that a constitutional monarchy with a great deal of individual liberty is worse than authoritarian and even semi-authoritarian democracies?

The irony here is that I thought I made quite clear I regard the Napoleonic regimes as the latter far more than the former. That doesn't even get into the kind of foreign policy adventurism that eventually saw France defeated and wrecked as a country, twice.

I understand. I would have liked to see Napoleon establish a legislature, as well, but it just wasn't realistic considering all of Europe hated him because of how much liberty he allowed his people. Napoleon III is decidedly less defensible.

Personally, as a strong supporter of Madisonianism, it's hard for me to understand how little people appreciate Napoleon I. On every single issue of individual liberty, his regime was better than that of his enemies. Besides the ones in America at the time, he even was the first post-Roman leader to allow homosexuality to such an extent as he did.

Because today we do not approve of caudillos or elected dictators. At the time, dictator and even Emperor, was a less offensive term and King was far more offensive. In the modern day, when we think of a King/Queen, we think of George VI and Elizabeth II, dignified people devoted to their countries in times of war and crisis. While a dictator evokes images of Swastikas and red stars, and Emperor evokes images of Pearl Harbor or Maximilian in Mexico (Another product of Nappy III). We also see the world through Anglophile eyes, hence the support for Single Payer on the left, to the exclusion of other universal healthcare options. This is further ingrained from having fought two world wars allied with the British and the concept of Britain as an island standing down a continental hegemon (who also happened to invade Russia while still at war with Britain), makes it hard not to compare Napoleon to Hitler.

He comes across as a usurping strong man, the kind that rides in on a white horse to save the day when the country is plunged into chaos and turmoil, in hopes that he will provide stability at the expense of freedom and liberty, and typically ends up providing none of those things.

You say you "wish he had a legislature", yet laud his record on liberty and freedom. The problem is that liberty is worthless unless people control the legislative branch and that legislative branch has power, because the Emperor can take it away at a whim and there is no limit or check on his power. This is the crux of Madisonianism and it was fairly absent in the Napoleonic regimes. Bonapartism is great at expanding suffrage, for powerless legislatures (Napoleon III) or none at all (Plebiscites). Liberty only exists in state of stability and balanced institutions, Napoleon provided neither.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

There are men made for governance, for being good political leaders, and there are men made for adventures, for being saviors.

I can almost guarantee you that, if he had defeated his enemies, Napoleon would have strengthened the legislature, if only to give himself something to do. In the meantime, do you care to respond to my prior hypothetical question?

What hypothetical question?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

No, and anyone who proposes such a thing is un-American.

I forget, was it the 1st or 2nd French Republic that enabled the American colonies to win their war of independence ?

Enemy of my enemy, lesser of two evils, etc.

?

What's to question?

relevance.

I realize I didn't word that very well. My point was that the United States and the French Monarchy having a common enemy in England doesn't necessarily mean that the French Monarchy stood for the same values as the United States.

Foreign policy is almost always guided by common "interests", not common values. We were allied with the French Ancien Regime against Britain, we fought the French First Republic in the Quasi War at sea, and The French Second Empire was favorable to the South in the American Civil War. All of these were dictated by the interests of the parties involved, not their values or ideology. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I actually support this now because, you see, although Louis XIV was not a socialist in the traditional sense of the word; he quite clearly was one, and therefore I support him.

While every socialist is by definition a "State Capitalist", not every "State Capitalist" was a socialist.

Though for this period the proper term is Mercantilist, not State Capitalist, but the idea is similar at least from a perspective of government intervention, sponsorship of infrastructure and trade protectionism.

Edit: After seeing the Nazis as leftwing thread, lol.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Can I be the King of France?  I'm sure I could forge some documents claiming I was related to Louis XVI.

I wonder if there are any illegitimate descendents of Louis XV, I mean he was after all, "one horny fellow" as Crazy Kal put it.

All existing legitimate Capetians are descended from Louis XIII, the Carlists from Louis XIV and the Orleanists from his brother, who was also one horny fellow and a rather bisexual one at that.

The male line through Louis XV is extinct, not through Louis XIV or Louis XIII however.

By the way, Louis XIV's brother wasn't bisexual, he was gay.

The male legitimate line without a doubt. I was wondering if there were any descendants male or female, by his mistresses. Kind of like with Charles II of England.

Are 17th century sources really going to be concise enough on the matter to confirm that he was gay and not bi?