The Shadow of Great Britain

Chapter 976: Chapter 48: On the Crater

Before I first visited Paris in 1833, my understanding of this country was almost entirely from books. However, after conversing with the Royalists of Vendee and Brittany, I realized that the backbone of these Royalists was not the Orthodox nobility. Although the nobility occupied leadership roles within this group, without the support of the provincial peasants, they could never have stood on equal footing with the republican and Bonaparte parties.

Reviewing the development process of France from the late 18th century to the mid-19th century, it is clear that the center of the European Continent, Paris, was continuously expanding, while the local autonomy of rural areas was constantly diminishing. The passion and characteristics of independent living were gradually disappearing, many unique rural traditions were vanishing, and the ancient national lifestyle was slowly fading until no traces of history could be found.

The countryside was continuously declining, withering away, yet the nation itself was vibrant and more vibrant than ever. However, the sole driving force behind the rejuvenation of the country was Paris. Cities, monopolized by selfish interests, only cared about their own benefits and were always prepared to sacrifice the interests of rural areas. Farmers seemed to be eliminated from the entire nation, cast aside.

In the 1780s, no one would have thought that France was in decline. The French had showcased themselves brilliantly in the Austrian Succession War, the Seven Years’ War, and the American War of Independence. Therefore, naturally, everyone believed this country had boundless prospects and would prosper forever.

However, the superficial prosperity brought not stability and peace, but instead led to the Great Revolution. The revolution agenda for France was set by the three most politically savvy classes: the Priest of the First Estate, the Nobility of the Second Estate, and the Citizens of the Third Estate.

They ignited the flames of revolution. But unexpectedly for them, once the fervor of revolution was kindled, it could be directed in any direction beyond individual control.

Why did the actual course of the Great Revolution contradict its slogans so much? Why was Thomas Paine, who wrote the “Rights of Man,” eventually forced to leave during the Great Revolution? And why did British poets like Wordsworth and Coleridge, who once fervently supported the Great Revolution, ultimately become the most vehement opponents?

I think it’s because they realized that those executing the revolution and those planning it weren’t the same group of people. The ideals of the Great Revolution actually existed only during its initial period. Shortly after, they were obliterated by successive bloody conflicts and violent events in the streets and fields of France.

The management style of the republican government during the Great Revolution was not as novel as they hoped. On the contrary, in many places, they simply renamed their management methods. In fact, the backdrop of the republican governance was still the Bourbon’s fleur-de-lis flag, even worse. History is like an art gallery, but with few original works; most are replicas.

The republicans hastily abolished religion and law because they believed these were outdated elements that needed to be toppled. However, they did not prepare a moral standard system that could convince everyone. This should have been a process of replacing the train’s parts, but the solution offered by the republicans was to start from the invention of the wheel.

The result of such actions was that the spirits of the entire French people began to lose balance. They did not know when to stop, what principles to reference, nor did they understand how the country should be managed. They sunk the broken dugout and naturally drowned. When they discovered the disastrous consequences of their destruction of the old system, they impatiently searched for the rotten ropes of the old system to pull themselves ashore.

However, since a part of the old system had already been destroyed, they tore off the layer they thought was hypocritical—the easiest part to tear off—so what they grabbed was precisely the most difficult to eradicate and the most poisonous remnants. Clerical power did not disappear in this land but rather integrated with the government, with the government replacing God’s position.

The farmers, when losing their cows or horses, appealed to the government for compensation. The wealthy requested loans from the government to better develop their lands for more profit. Industrialists pleaded with the government for privileges to squeeze out competitors. Merchants revealed personal secrets to the Governor, stating they were currently short on cash and inquiring whether assistance, at least in the form of a loan, could be obtained.

The French middle class’s eagerness and desire for public office were stronger than ever. When someone received a small sum of money, they would immediately use it to purchase a position rather than invest in business. This pathetic obsession with public office was more detrimental to the development of French agriculture and commerce than industrial monopolies and agricultural taxes.

Today’s passion for acquiring positions has only increased since then, but a fundamental difference exists between that time and the present: back then, the government sold positions, while today’s government grants them. Today, people don’t need to spend money; they only need to sell their souls to achieve their goals.

When the love for liberty was grievously injured by disorderly rule and anarchy, the ideals of the revolution gradually paled. At that point, the bewildered nation began searching for a master, and the revolution that idealized liberty eventually birthed the most autocratic government and a great dictator: Napoleon Bonaparte.