Louis Napoleon | AdventAI

The Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Apr 30, 1867

Louis Napoleon.

THIERS, the French historian, one of the men who rose with the revolution of 1830, who was Minister of Louis-Philippe, and who “defended society” in 1848 against the Socialist doctrines of Prudhon, is now one of the most conspicuous leaders of the opposition to the Empire, and has just made an elaborate speech which is worthy to have been spoken by the Minister of Charles X. It is a curious illustration of the antiquated political policy of Europe, for it is a plea for the dismemberment of other nations. It assumes that prosperity consists in the misfortunes of others; and that a truly great France is incompatible with a united Italy, and a confederated Germany. The Emperor is blamed for not having foreseen the result of the war, and for being outwitted by Bismarck. Thiers’s speech is a long wail over the lost balance of power—a balance secured by the treaties of Vienna, which were made solely in the interests of kings and dukes, and with regal disregard of the people. Thiers, of course, is much too learned a scholar not to fortify his position with history; but history will be interpreted very differently by other scholars and statesmen. He ended his speech by the sharp sneer that there was no fault left for the Imperial Government to commit.

This assault of Thiers is strong not in itself but in its opportunity. It is no discredit to the Empire that it has not interfered to prevent the unity of Italy and Germany, but it is very mortifying that Europe has been reconstructed, and the treaties of Vienna destroyed without the increase of territory and with a loss of prestige to France. A united Italy and a confederated Germany do not threaten the legitimate policy of France; but it is a wound to French “glory that France has not equally advanced with those Powers.” The skill of Thiers is shown in choosing the moment for his attack, and although his explanation of the fact is unsatisfactory, the fact still remains and stings.

Emile de Girardin has shown his superiority to Thiers as a political tactician by fastening upon the simple fact and relentlessly exposing it. He boldly declares that the Empire is a failure, and that when it talks of conceding liberties it confesses that liberties have been withheld. As for the Emperor he says that he has broken his oath, and distinctly insinuates that he overthrew the Republic when it was not in peril. This is the substance of an editorial article which has interested France quite as much as the speech of Thiers; and nothing more forcibly illustrates the truth of Girardin’s assertions and the nervousness of the Government than the fact that he was tried and fined for the publication. That is a sign of real weakness in the Empire. Were the Emperor conscious of a sure hold upon the nation he would have willingly allowed the publication as an evidence of his security. But if the editor had been sure of that hold, he would not have written the article.

If the effort which Louis Napoleon is making toward a league of France with Holland and Switzerland to withstand the increasing power of Germany should fail, the Empire would be in danger. The French might be content to be ruled by the cleverest man in Europe, but they will hardly remain loyal to him when they distinctly see a cleverer. Bismarck is a dreadful rival. His game is so imposing and swift and brilliant, that Louis Napoleon is as much dazzled as the rest of Europe. It will require all his energy and skill to hold his throne against the singular political combinations which are now plainly arising in Europe, and in which the United States unofficially and involuntarily, but none the less powerfully plays so important a part.—Harper’s Weekly.