On the line of argument that argues Napoleon destroyed the gains of the revolution, it can be proposed that one event in which can be seen to have undermined the gains of the revolution was the hereditary principle. This undermined the reforms that had taken place as this was reintroduced as it had been abandoned with the overthrow of Louis XV1. The hereditary principle is one which is a system in which an individual is succeeded by his nearest male relative (this would usually be the eldest son), a system used in monarchies. This whole system is one that undermined the gains of the revolution, as it is a system that for most is not a fair and equal one, hence undermines the gains, as most were either directly or at least indirectly linked to equality and fairness. The revolution wanted to change the ideas of positions being given on the bases of family, hence reintroducing the hereditary principle is not just undermining what the revolution was about but also going back on what was achieved due to the revolution
The concordat was another which can be argued to have undermined the reforms and the gains of the revolution. This was eventually signed and all agreed on the 16th of July 1801 and was a very controversial policy in which was introduced by Napoleon, although was not published by Napoleon until April 1802. One of the main reasons why this can be seen to have undermined the gains of the revolution is because it went against some of the policies of the revolution. For example one of the main policies of the revolution was the conformation of the separation of the church and state; however in the concordat this was ended. So we can see how the Concordat was almost completely going against what had been achieved in the revolution. And not only, but was also going against what the revolution had wanted for the country and the people of the country.
A third point to mention when debating whether or not Napoleon had, by May 1804, destroyed the gains of the revolution is, the way in which the influence of an elite in the institutions of the government and in society had undermined the forms and hence the gains of the revolution. There is strong evidence to suggest that this did undermined the gains and reforms as, the influence they had was against the body of exactly what the revolution were trying to achieve and some might say that if they hadn’t been given this influence then the gains of the revolution would have continued strongly.
However as mentioned there is always another line of thought to go along side every argument. In this case it is the argument that says that Napoleon didn’t destroy the gains of the revolution. This argument does have evidence that can be argued to prove itself. For instance when looking at the education reforms, we can see that actually Napoleon had the same view and opinions on this topic as did the revolution. We can see how the educational reforms actually in lots of respects reflect the gains and the principles of the revolution. For example both Napoleon and the revolution believed in ordinary people just to have a simple moral education at primary schools run by the church. Although Napoleon did often argue that more should be achieved for the ordinary child, he never really put this in to practice, so in reality he was in a very similar situation as to those in the revolution days.
Another concept that reflects the gains and the principles is the civil code, introduced on 21st March 1804. This was founded on the work of successive revolutionary governments and hence followed the same line of thought as had been had by the revolution. Hence we can say that this is showing Napoleon not to destroy the gains of the revolution but actually to build on the gains of the revolution instead.
A final point to examine is the extent to which the constitutional changes of the period to 1804 undermined the process towards democracy and liberty that was achieved during the revolution. The revolution can be argued to have achieved a very strong path towards liberty, freedom, equality and democracy. And the constitutional changes can be argued to have come along and very much undermined all that had been previously achieved by the revolution. However we do have to consider the point that has been proposed by historians, which is; that “Bonaparte could not suppress something which did not exist”.
