stood for. He did safeguard all the original ideals of the Revolution, but he formed a
new France, which combined elements of both the new constitution as well as the
ancient regime. A classic example of blending old and new ideals is Napoleon’s
reforming of the Republic. In 1795 he adopted a new view that differed from his
original views on politics and power. He saw that the ideals of the constitution of that
year were dying. In his eyes, it had become incapable of defending the French people.
He did however damage the Revolution, when he chose to form the consuls;
he separated power into different consuls, each of which were responsible for a
different branch of government. There were legislative, judiciary and executive
bodies, yet Napoleon, in his search for power, united all real power under the
executive body, thus destroying the ideals that the Revolutionary Republic had
supported. Napoleon justified this seizure of power as being in order to make the
republic loved by its citizens, respected abroad and feared by its enemies. He
reassured the people that this new constitution was based upon true principles of
representative government and on the sacred rights of property, liberty and equality.
He swore these powers would be strong and ever lasting. This reform shows that he
did not exactly support and safeguard the revolution, but he reformed France.
Throughout his whole career he was the prince of liberties. In 1816, he declared
himself to be the protagonist of the Revolution, charging the French people to respect
liberty, and above all equality. He deemed it possible to restrain liberty in extreme
cases, but he is quoted as having said, “Heaven forbid that we ever infringe on
equality”. In this respect, Napoleon truly was the son of the Revolution. Yet he
countered his revolutionary actions with seemingly monarchist or royalist actions. In
1804 he crowned himself emporer, thus reestablishing the oppressive system of
governing that had lead to the revolution. For every action he took he justified it. For
all the military threats to France he destroyed, he claimed them in the name of the
revolution, yet he also saw himself as someone who was a balance between disorder
and oppression. He claimed to have closed the gulf of anarchy and cleared away the
chaos. He saw himself as a figure who was responsible for refining and purifying the
Revolution and dignifying his nation. Yet once again, he was responsible for
establishing the rule of kings, something which greatly contradicts the ideals of the
Revolution. Napoleon also changed the system of voting in France. Although this new
system did not align with the old one, it was not completely contradictory to it either.
The electoral system adopted at the beginning of the consulate provided universal
suffrage, under which only men over 21 who paid taxes could vote. Napoleon
established the national list, which consisted of a tribunate,100 men who were aged
25 and over, who could not vote on the legislation but who could discuss it, a
legislature, which consisted of around 300 men aged 30 and over who could vote but
not discuss the legislation and a senate, around 60 men over 40 who held their
position in office for life. These bodies made up a council, and it was this council all
major, central and local government officials and initiated all legislation. In creating
his new system of governement, Napoleon assured his control over French politics, as
it appeared to be democratic as the Revolution’s Republic had been, yet power was
not evenly or justly separate, and certain bodies such as the tribunate were created
merely for the purpose of democratic appearance. In conclusion to the question “As
heir to the Revolution, did Napoleon safeguard its gains for France?”, I would have to
say, that Napoleon was neither a true son of the Revolution or a traitor who plunged
France back into darkness and oppression. He can be accurately defined as a great
military leader who merely combined old and new ways of living and thinking in
order to form the most suitable governing body that he could, for love of his country.
