Annie Jourdan

The Netherlands in the constellation of the eighteenth-century Western revolutions

In the constellation of the eighteenth-century revolutions, the French events have always occupied a dominant position. Consequently the other European upheavals have been considered as being provoked or strongly influenced by France. Yet, the Dutch revolutions in the 1780s and 1790s provide some important nuances to this interpretation. Before the French took over the Bastille, there was already a Dutch revolution with devoted Patriots, speaking about rights of man and constitutions. The Patriots had to flee abroad in 1787. In 1795, thanks to the French Army, they were able to return to their drawing boards, eager to think anew their government and society. This paper investigates how they did it and whether the American and French precedents were so influential after all in the construction of the Batavian Republic.

The Batavian Revolution: Typical Dutch, Typical French or just Atlantic

Abstract With the exception of Simon Schamas monograph on Dutch Patriots and French ‘Liberators’, the Batavian Revolution (1795–1806) has usually been interpreted as French-inspired and thus as ‘alien’ to the Netherlands. The original Dutch revolutionary achievements are underestimated as are those in the Patriot Revolution (1781–1787). In this article, both periods are investigated and (re)placed in the context of the contemporary revolutions in America and France to better understand their mutual interactions. The focus lies on the political and cultural transfers between these three nations in revolution.

French Representations of the Continental Blockade: Three kinds of Narratives for and against

To better understand how the Continental Blockade has been interpreted in France, it is useful to study at least three kinds of historical narratives.2 First, there are the memoirs of contemporary witnesses and Napoleon’s remarks on the topic. Second, there are the writings of nineteenth- and twentieth-century historians, and third, the studies of legal scholars, who are more interested in the law of nations, the rights of the so-called neutrals and maritime law. These sources have different perceptions and goals. The first want to testify in person about the times they lived through and their own part within them. This does not mean, of course, that they do not take sides or seek to justify their actions, in contrast, historians seek to depict and understand the history of the past, drawing conclusions on the conse- quences of events and individual decisions. Here it bears noting that French historiography from the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is tinged with a kind of nationalism, or at least a patriotism, which leads the authors to attribute the responsibility for war to others — to Britain mostly — and not solely to Napoleon.” This tendency is less perceptible with the legal scholars, eager to employ comparative analysis in the legal history of Europe. These diverse explanations are indispensable if we are to place the Napoleonic Continental Blockade in the context of changing times.

Conclusion: The Napoleonic Empire in the Age of Revolutions: The Contrast of Two National Representations

Strangely enough, the revolution of 1789–91 was to be revived with the creation of the First Empire. This revival is rarely noted and relatively unknown. 1 Yet the social pact that Napoleon concluded with the French people on 2 December 1804 indeed suggests that the Empire was going to be a constitutional monarchy, founded on a written constitution and a social pact. The latter was meant to maintain the liberties of the French and to protect the rights of the constitutional bodies. It was only under these conditions that the Senate and the Corps Legislatif had agreed to proclaim Napoleon Emperor of the French. Discussions about this decision started in April 1804 and ended one month later. Meanwhile, the Tribunate and the Senate discussed the changes they wanted to bring about in the French government. For some of their members, the issue was to re-establish the government on a constitutional basis and to put an end to what they called the Consulates dictatorship. All agreed, however, that something had to change and those changes were to be inspired by the first revolutionary reforms. Before explaining in detail what it was about, I want to argue that the First Empire retained more revolutionary achievements than is normally assumed—also by the present author—but in a very special way. 2 To be sure, only a detailed study of the political, juridical and cultural institutions can prove the soundness of this argument and allow us to see how and why it happened. Evidence may have been given by Napoleon himself when in St. Helena, he said that his Civil Code would endure. This conviction could apply to other great imperial accomplishments, such as architecture and civil engineering. 3 Napoleon was very proud of these civil achievements and was aware of their value for post-revolutionary France. Tackling this problem will enable me to invalidate theories that see the First Empire simply as a military state. 4 My argument is that it is far more complicated.