On the Second French Republic

In his new book, The Second French Republic, 1848-1852: A Political Reinterpretation, Christopher Guyver argues that the notables developed a sense of identity during the construction of the Second Republic was rooted in a sense of opposition to the Second Empire. Indeed, the notables are the core subject of this text, as illustrated when the author states that “the book’s focus is the fears and plans of the political elite displaced in February 1848” (2). He goes so far as to argue that the two things that held this group together were suspicion of the new republic and hatred for new ideas of socialism.

While the notables were shocked at the speed of the February Revolution, they were also perplexed by the lack of mass violence that followed. Most notables believed revolution to be a fundamentally violent affair culminating in events like the First Republic’s Reign of Terror. Coming to understand that the violence of the French Revolution occurred in the years following 1789, notables scrambled for power. In gathering power, there was a sense that it was absolutely essential for them to become legislators in order to prevent French society from descending into socialist anarchy. With this fear, Guyver argues that the notables were forced to mass-produce anti-socialist tracts, although these were unsuccessful at working against the spectre rouge.

After the coup of Napoleon III, many notables were convinced that the Empire would end badly, so they retreated from politics. In the aftermath of Napoleon III’s rise, many notables lived comfortably without interference, unlike a large number of Republicans, who were exiled, thrown in prison, or killed.

In addition to his main narrative, Guyver argues that the Second Republic is remarkable because all post-Revolutionary factions had a role in government: legitimists, Orléanists, republicans, etc. Although the republicans were the ones who formed the Second Republic, their republic quickly became a conservative structure.

Further, Guyver argues that the period cannot be understood without seeing Changarnier as central to the narrative. The notables pinned their hopes on his potential anti-republican presidency to bring “order” back to the country, but he failed miserably. In any case, he was in a position where he could have initiated a coup. Guyver even argues that the next time a single general would be as powerful as Changarnier would not be until the Boulanger Affair of the 1880s.

In crafting this history, Guyver spends far less time looking at broad social patterns and changes than individual men—especially bureaucrats and legislators—who had a role in the Republican government. However, Guyver did spend much time looking at newspapers and journals in order to gather the general mood of the notables, which would be much harder to do had he only looked at what individuals said in their memoirs or diaries.

Ultimately, this is a political history of French conservatism during the Second Republic. This is an interesting direction to take this work, as most of the other work on the Second Republic emphasizes the role of the Left and/or the usurpation of the government by Napoleon III.