WI: The Second French Republic survives

[EasternRomanEmpire]

What if Napoleon III didn't do a self-coup and elections are held in 1952?
Would this republic be more stable than the Third French Republic?
Could Nap III be influential in the politics of this France?
Would the Crimean War still happen?
How do Franco-British relations continue?
Will Bismarck still provoke France to unify Germany?

 

[Lalli]

Probably only way to stop Napoleon is that founders of Second Republic put consitution clause which bars claimants to run presidency or participating to politics. So Bonaparte wouldn't has any chances to do anything unless launch military coup.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Probably only way to stop Napoleon is that founders of Second Republic put consitution clause which bars claimants to run presidency or participating to politics. So Bonaparte wouldn't has any chances to do anything unless launch military coup.

You can't really put that clause in the constitution since it is a republic, not an Empire; it would be like putting in the constitution of the republic that no Bourbon can run for presidency - it just doesn't make sense to.

 

[Lalli]

You can't really put that clause in the constitution since it is a republic, not an Empire; it would be like putting in the constitution of the republic that no Bourbon can run for presidency - it just doesn't make sense to.

Unless they are extremely worried that they could return to power. Of course another option is expel royal families like Third Republic did and it was reversed only lot later by de Gaulle or Italy which maintained expulsion until 2000's.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Unless they are extremely worried that they could return to power. Of course another option is expel royal families like Third Republic did and it was reversed only lot later by de Gaulle or Italy which maintained expulsion until 2000's.

You can expel the Bourbons but expelling Bonapartists is much more difficult and Nap III wasn't expected to win.

 

[NedStark]

You can't really put that clause in the constitution since it is a republic, not an Empire; it would be like putting in the constitution of the republic that no Bourbon can run for presidency - it just doesn't make sense to.

Yes it could, and IOTL the Thouret Amendment which aimed to ban royal pretenders to run for elections came very close to be passed. It did not pass because the author withdrew it as he considered it unnecessary after Louis Napoleon was laughed off the National Assembly when making a poor speech against said amendment. L-N actually resigned from the National Assembly after that incident - which was a boon for him since he was able to distance himself from the National Workshop debacle.

You can expel the Bourbons but expelling Bonapartists is much more difficult and Nap III wasn't expected to win.

The Third Republic eventually expelled all royalist houses including the Bonaparte.

Probably only way to stop Napoleon is that founders of Second Republic put consitution clause which bars claimants to run presidency or participating to politics. So Bonaparte wouldn't has any chances to do anything unless launch military coup.

There would be no military coup - Louis Napoleon was just an exile who did not hold any public office or military rank.

The answer here is to have the Thouret Amendment actually passed.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Yes it could, and IOTL the Thouret Amendment which aimed to ban royal pretenders to run for elections came very close to be passed. It did not pass because the author withdrew it as he considered it unnecessary after Louis Napoleon was laughed off the National Assembly when making a poor speech against said amendment. L-N actually resigned from the National Assembly after that incident - which was a boon for him since he was able to distance himself from the National Workshop debacle.

When you say royal pretendants you mean the Bourbons and anybody having a claim to the title of King of France?
Edit: As far as I can find Thouret was a politician guilottined during the French Revolution, doesn't have much to do with Nap III.

The Third Republic eventually expelled all royalist houses including the Bonaparte.

That's after Nap III took power before that you don't have a good reason to expel the Bonapartes since they did nothing wrong.

 

[NedStark]

When you say royal pretendants you mean the Bourbons and anybody having a claim to the title of King of France?
Edit: As far as I can find Thouret was a politician guilottined during the French Revolution, doesn't have much to do with Nap III.

Well, the amendment aimed to banned all three royalist houses: Bourbon, Orleans and Bonaparte. This was a different Thouret and I agree that this part of history is not easy to find on the Internet.

Alternatively, there were 2 more opportunities to prevent Napoleon:
1) Have the Provisional Government imprisoning him when he returned to France.
2) Have the National Assembly voting to have the Presidency elected by the National Assembly - Napoleon had few supporters within the Assembly and would have never been elected under this system.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

Well, the amendment aimed to banned all three royalist houses: Bourbon, Orleans and Bonaparte. This was a different Thouret and I agree that this part of history is not easy to find on the Internet.

Alternatively, there were 2 more opportunities to prevent Napoleon:
1) Have the Provisional Government imprisoning him when he returned to France.
2) Have the National Assembly voting to have the Presidency elected by the National Assembly - Napoleon had few supporters within the Assembly and would have never been elected under this system.

How do you see France progressing from there?

 

[NedStark]

How do you see France progressing from there?

IMO economic policies would resemble OTL path, since many of Nappy III’s policies were actually initiated under De Cavaignac. But there would be no reconstruction of Paris at OTL scale.

Other domestic policies, I think the most significant butterfly would be an early introduction of universal state education system (IOTL it was introduced in 1880) to promote republicanism in younger generations.

Foreign policies would be very different, since Napoleon III totally dictated France’s foreign policies IOTL:
- There would be no Mexican expedition and no Second Mexican Empire (totally a Bonaparte brainchild), and thus France would have taken a more pro-Union stance on ACW.
- No occupation of Rome which pissed off Italians a lot and prevented an alliance with Italy. On the contrary, the Second Republic could shore up the Roman Republic and keep Italian republicanism alive. In the maximally optimistic scenario, France could help drive Austria out of Italy. A friendly Italy would be very valuable to France.
- I think TTL France would focus more on colonization in Africa and Asia and less on Continental Europe. Likely no French participation of Crimean War.
- Bismarck would find it harder to pick a fight because ITTL a Republican France would have very different foreign policy priorities. For example, it would care less about monarchist succession in a certain country.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

I think TTL France would focus more on colonization in Africa and Asia and less on Continental Europe. Likely no French participation of Crimean War.

Would GB still try to protect the Ottomans from Russia without French support (in the sense they would join in the event of a Russo-Turkish war)?

 

[NedStark]

Would GB still try to protect the Ottomans from Russia without French support (in the sense they would join in the event of a Russo-Turkish war)?

It would just be yet another Russo-Turkish War. Without the French, there would be no Crimean War as we know it, and British involvement would be limited to naval support to the Ottomans.

 

[Wendell]

IMO economic policies would resemble OTL path, since many of Nappy III’s policies were actually initiated under De Cavaignac. But there would be no reconstruction of Paris at OTL scale.

Other domestic policies, I think the most significant butterfly would be an early introduction of universal state education system (IOTL it was introduced in 1880) to promote republicanism in younger generations.

Foreign policies would be very different, since Napoleon III totally dictated France’s foreign policies IOTL:
- There would be no Mexican expedition and no Second Mexican Empire (totally a Bonaparte brainchild), and thus France would have taken a more pro-Union stance on ACW.
- No occupation of Rome which pissed off Italians a lot and prevented an alliance with Italy. On the contrary, the Second Republic could shore up the Roman Republic and keep Italian republicanism alive. In the maximally optimistic scenario, France could help drive Austria out of Italy. A friendly Italy would be very valuable to France.
- I think TTL France would focus more on colonization in Africa and Asia and less on Continental Europe. Likely no French participation of Crimean War.
- Bismarck would find it harder to pick a fight because ITTL a Republican France would have very different foreign policy priorities. For example, it would care less about monarchist succession in a certain country.

I was with you until that last line. Surrounding liberal republican France with conservative Catholic monarchies would be a major concern in Paris.

 

[walmart]

- Bismarck would find it harder to pick a fight because ITTL a Republican France would have very different foreign policy priorities. For example, it would care less about monarchist succession in a certain country.

Wouldn't an earlier Austrian withdraw from Italy mean Prussia has a freer hand in Germany ?

 

[Wendell]

Savoyard Italy is going to be more reactionary in this timeline. Italian nationalists will want a republic too and may tolerate Sardinia as a means to that end.

 

[walmart]

- I think TTL France would focus more on colonization in Africa and Asia and less on Continental Europe. Likely no French participation of Crimean War.

Given the whole reason for the Crimean war was France. I'm curious how the Ottoman-Russian relationship evolves.

 

[Mildtryth]

When you say royal pretendants you mean the Bourbons and anybody having a claim to the title of King of France?
Edit: As far as I can find Thouret was a politician guilottined during the French Revolution, doesn't have much to do with Nap III.

That's after Nap III took power before that you don't have a good reason to expel the Bonapartes since they did nothing wrong.

Anthony Thouret, not Jacques-Guillaume.

 

[nagachate]

I'm not the most well versed on this topic, but i think prevent Lous-Napoleon is only the easy part. Remove him and Cavaignac wins, but then there are still the Motagnards who weren't stupid to join the June Days and were still strong enough to afaik do pretty well on the countryside. Then there is the Party of Order who will still want to restore the monarchy, who's to say Thiers doesn't return to power in 1852(?) and reatored the Duc de Chambourd? Unless the duke still refuses to accept changes like the tricolor, but as i said i'm not the most well versed, i just think it's more important to think about how to keep the republic long term than just removing the Bonapartists, since the Montagne and the Party of Order might still pull from the left and right unti the center gives in.

 

[jacob ningen]

I'm not the most well versed on this topic, but i think prevent Lous-Napoleon is only the easy part. Remove him and Cavaignac wins, but then there are still the Motagnards who weren't stupid to join the June Days and were still strong enough to afaik do pretty well on the countryside. Then there is the Party of Order who will still want to restore the monarchy, who's to say Thiers doesn't return to power in 1852(?) and reatored the Duc de Chambourd? Unless the duke still refuses to accept changes like the tricolor, but as i said i'm not the most well versed, i just think it's more important to think about how to keep the republic long term than just removing the Bonapartists, since the Montagne and the Party of Order might still pull from the left and right unti the center gives in.

one way is to make saint denis uprising in 1830 a success.

 

[NedStark]

I'm not the most well versed on this topic, but i think prevent Lous-Napoleon is only the easy part. Remove him and Cavaignac wins, but then there are still the Motagnards who weren't stupid to join the June Days and were still strong enough to afaik do pretty well on the countryside. Then there is the Party of Order who will still want to restore the monarchy, who's to say Thiers doesn't return to power in 1852(?) and reatored the Duc de Chambourd? Unless the duke still refuses to accept changes like the tricolor, but as i said i'm not the most well versed, i just think it's more important to think about how to keep the republic long term than just removing the Bonapartists, since the Montagne and the Party of Order might still pull from the left and right unti the center gives in.

The bill that aimed to ban Bonaparte IOTL also aimed to ban all other royal pretenders - so it would also tackle the issue. So kiss “Prince-President” goodbye. Plus, Thiers - a liberal Orleanist - would not restore Chambord and like quite a few Orleanists he would have become a conservative republican the moment a Chambord/Bourbon restoration becomes a real prospect.

As for the Montagnards, they were radicals but still fundamentally republican.

Long-term, general economic recovery in the 1850s would have helped shore up the Republic.