Franco-American Diplomacy

The following paper was written for a Methods and Philosophy of History course and examines how the friendship America and France initially experienced eventually collapsed amid the early 1800s.

The XYZ Affair

A Collapsing Friendship: Franco-American Diplomacy in the Early 19th Century

            Within the early stages of American independence, the relatively small republic desperately sought international aid to bolster their claims of sovereignty. As such, the Americans turned to France for financial and martial help during the American Revolution. While this aid was initially granted, Franco-American relations soon began to shift. Indeed, by 1812, the states were close to open warfare. As each state developed early perspectives on national identity, several key diplomatic misunderstandings led to the sharp deterioration in Franco-American amity; this shift was significantly fueled by each country's interaction with a third power - Great Britain.

            These critical misunderstandings are varying in nature, but each profoundly affected the diplomatic relations between France and the United States. For instance, the misinterpretation of Anglo-American relations by France and the complex shifting power struggle among the three states are key to understanding the deterioration of Franco-American diplomacy. Great Britain was the initial link between the other two states; the Franco-American friendship grew out of the United States' War of Independence with Great Britain. As that conflict came to a close, a martial and economic alliance was founded between France and America. While this treaty provided for an initial intense friendship, it also offered several opportunities for miscommunication.

            The 1798 Treaty of Alliance between France and the United States officially founded an economic and martial agreement between those two states against the British. This work listed several key points establishing this friendship. For instance, Article Three of that document states that "The two contracting Parties shall each on its own Part, and in the manner it may judge most proper, make all the efforts in its Power, against their common Enemy, in order to attain the end proposed." France and the United States were to reduce British power in whatever method was deemed necessary. Yet, arising from these clauses came a precedent that was later broken in two ways. [1]

            While France and the United States had allied to defeat Great Britain, America eventually found it profitable to reestablish friendship with her mother country. The connections between the freed colonies and their previous colonizer remained strong; economic ties were especially strong. For instance, much of New England relied upon Great Britain for job opportunities and trade. After the War of Independence, the populace of that region demanded a renewal of trade in order to boost their economy. As a result, the 1794 Jay's Treaty was enacted.[2]

            Beneficial for both Great Britain and the United States, this treaty essentially reestablished ties of friendship between the two states. Indeed, the opening article offers clear evidence of a desire for renewed amity: "There shall be a firm inviolable and universal Peace, and a true and sincere Friendship between His Britannic Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, and the United States of America." Furthermore, the treaty called for Great Britain to remove troops from the Northwest Territory. In return, the United States would honor debts to Great Britain that had been incurred before the War of Independence. Yet, the treaty deeply angered France, who saw America's new alliance with Great Britain as a betrayal of her coalition with France.[3]

            Additionally, the Franco-American 1778 Treaty of Alliance led to a controversial predicament for the American government amidst the French Revolution. A decade after the alliance had been formed between America and France, the latter experienced her own revolution. This tumultuous event provided for complete and irrevocable governmental shifts in France; her economy, military, political foundations, and social order were dramatically altered. Her diplomatic relations with the United States changed as well. As the 1778 Treaty called for a martial alliance between the two states, the French government firmly believed that America should come to her aid in the Wars of the Coalition following the French Revolution.[4]

            However, the friendship America held for France was, even then, beginning to slip. Although she had depended heavily upon France for success in her recent War of Independence, many felt that the new republic should establish herself without the aid of European powers, who had a definite history of exploiting the New World. Thus, "Post-War nationalism contributed to the slighting of France because it was difficult to exult in the glory of America while at the same time stressing the recent dependence on France." Because of this, America found it problematic to support France during the Wars of the Coalition.[5]

            In fact, little assistance came from the new American republic, for a crisis had formed within American politics. Many, including Thomas Jefferson, desired for American recognition of France's new government. Yet, this recognition did not entail military aid as well. Many felt that the French Revolutionary government was too radical; the execution of King Louis XVI had bolstered these fears. President Washington eventually decided not to assist France militarily in her new wars. His Neutrality Proclamation of 1794 declared that France would receive no martial aid from the United States.

"Whereas it appears that a state of war exists between Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, and the United Netherlands on the one part and France on the other, and the duty and interest of the United States require that they should with sincerity and good faith adopt and pursue a conduct friendly and impartial toward the belligerent powers."

In order to avoid supporting the radicals controlling the French government, America resolved to withhold aid. However, further consequences would arise from this controversial decision.[6]

            Since America was establishing a renewed semi-friendship with Great Britain, as well as withholding aid for France's European military struggle, France responded in turn. This reprisal came in the form of the infamous XYZ affair. When John Adams took the Presidential office in 1797, he hoped to bolster the dying friendship between America and France. A special diplomatic mission was dispatched for Paris. Yet, these envoys were met with a scandalous reception. Before Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, France's Foreign Minister, agreed to even meet with Adams' diplomats, he demanded a massive bribe. The humiliating effects of this demand provided for a further degeneration of Franco-American diplomacy.[7]

            The next phase of diplomatic deterioration included two facets: the undeclared naval Quasi-War between France and the United States and the various Congressional laws enacted to limit French activity within America. As they moved into the Nineteenth Century, each state began to feel less friendly towards the other. Within a decade, the two states would even be on the verge of official declarations of war.

            In the wake of the humiliating XYZ Affair, the United States desired revenge for France's slight. Concurrently, France still burned with feelings of betrayal over the Jay's Treaty. As such, the states sought ways to avenge themselves upon the other. The Quasi-War emerged out of these desires. The Quasi-War was an undeclared martial conflict between the two countries upon the oceans. As the states remained separated by the Atlantic, no military operations would be conducted on land amid the Quasi-War. Instead, a conflict of naval forces arose. However, "naval forces" may be a misnomer in regards to the American fleet. For America "had no navy. Except for a few small revenue cutters, each manned by crews of six men, it did not have a single national vessel in commission." Thus, the term "Quasi-War" generally reflected attacks from French naval vessels upon American shipping.[8]

            Powerless to stop the French attacks, America grew increasingly resentful towards France. Meanwhile, French attacks grew in intensity and frequency. The waters of the Caribbean Sea provided for many such assaults. In these waters, American shipping was repeatedly captured, the country's merchantmen suffering for the two governments' disagreements. "French captors, as has been indicated, looted ships, sometimes committed atrocities against crew members and passengers, and frequently condemned vessels illegally." However, through American regional cooperation, the country was eventually able to combat the French attacks.[9]

            As a result of an unrelated piracy conflict with Algiers, America was in the process of forming a navy when the Quasi-War was initialed. While no vessels were completed, several powerful "super-frigates" were in the midst of construction. Indeed, these vessels were designed to out-sail any European frigate, and once completed, would pose a serious threat to the French naval forces attacking American shipping. As such, the construction process for these vessels was increased; Adams' administration was adamant that the naval armaments be finished. Eventually, the new American navy was formed and began taking French prizes of war. Thus, both combatants in the semi-war adopted increasingly hostile stances toward the other.[10]

            While naval engagements continued amid the Caribbean Sea and off the coasts of the United States, other measures were being conducted by the United States' Congress. In conjunction with the martial efforts of the Quasi-War, the U.S. Congress began to institute a series of legislation designed to protect America from enemy aliens and prevent seditious acts from undermining American government. These works of legislation, the Alien and Sedition Acts, included four distinct laws, each with implied slights toward France.

            The first of the Alien and Sedition acts was the Naturalization Act. Passed in the early summer of 1798, this piece of legislation increased the residence requirement for naturalization from five years to fourteen years. Next, the Alien Act was put into place. This work offered the President the freedom to arrest, imprison, and expel any enemy alien who has been deemed dangerous to the country. Furthermore, as described in the next act, the Alien Enemies Act, the American government offered the President the ability to apprehend and expel any resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States. Finally, the Sedition Act repressed freedom of speech by imposing restrictions and making it illegal to be caught "writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States." Within these pieces of legislation, Adams' government had granted itself nearly tyrannical power in an attempt to strike back at France. "'The alien and sedition acts,' Jefferson said in January 1799, 'have already operated as a powerful sedative of the XYZ inflammation.'" This legislation would have other effects as well.[11]

            The legislative backlash against the French also possessed political ramifications within America. For their part, the Alien and Sedition acts came to be extraordinarily unpopular. Indeed, fierce opposition, led by Thomas Jefferson and his Republicans, arose. This opposition would eventually label the acts as unconstitutional, and the issue would be a contributing factor to Jefferson's election to the Presidency in his Revolution of 1800. The shifting political atmosphere would be mirrored in France as well; new leaders of differing ideologies were emerging in that country. Napoleon Bonaparte came to power in November of 1799, and his ascension would come to alter Franco-American diplomacy.[12]

            With the arrival of two new leaders in France and the United States, the unofficial Quasi-War came to a close. Furthermore, Franco-American diplomacy experienced a newfound, if brief, strengthening. As Napoleon and Jefferson began to consolidate their power structures, peace became advantageous for both parties. Because of this, an American delegation met with French diplomats in Paris. They felt "it was their duty to conclude a treaty rather than return empty-handed. Their decision, they felt, served the interest of their government and of their people." Stringent efforts were conducted in order to reach a settlement. The American envoys succeeded in their mission, and the Convention of Mortefontaine was reached.[13]

            The Convention of Mortefontaine, variably called the Convention of 1800, established "a firm, inviolable, and universal peace, and a true and sincere Friendship between the French Republic, and the United States of America." All naval hostiles were ceased, captured ships were to be returned, and free trade was reestablished. Essentially, all remnants of the discontent over America's adoption of the 1794 Jay's Treaty and France's use of the XYZ affair were to be forgotten. Peace and friendship were once more restored to the two countries. While this amity would not remain indefinitely, it did provide for a pivotal event in American history.[14]

            In the years immediately following the cessation of hostilities during the Quasi-War, France and America experienced a renewed friendship. This harmony is most notable as it allowed for the Louisiana Purchase to occur. This monumental land transfer transpired for several reasons. For her part, America desperately wanted to expand. While her territorial holdings were sufficient for her population at the time, the country was continuing to expand rapidly. As such, Jefferson sought an outlet for continued growth. He found it amid Napoleon's willingness to abandon his North American holdings. As a result of his worsening naval war with Great Britain, coupled with the dreadful situation in Haiti, Napoleon came to see the futility of attempting to maintain a trans-continental empire. Because of this, he was also willing to transfer the entire Louisiana territory to American control. Indeed,

"The First Consul of the French Republic desiring to give to the United States a strong proof of his friendship doth hereby cede to the United States in the name of the French Republic forever and in full Sovereignty the said territory with all its rights and appurtenances."

With this acquiescence, America gained vast, new territory, and France was given funds to continue its defensive war against the insatiable Great Britain. Yet, the "friendship" of which Napoleon spoke was not to last.[15]

            While America remained geographically and ideologically distant from Europe, events there would further deteriorate Franco-American relations. The Wars of the Coalition against Napoleonic France were increasing in scope and magnitude. The Ancien Régime monarchies, led by Great Britain, continued to resent the Revolutionary principles of France. Constant warfare was underway to depose Napoleon and return France to a pre-Revolutionary state of affairs. Within this English-led maelstrom, Franco-American diplomacy again began to falter.

            Previously, American shipping had been attacked during the Quasi-War. As President Jefferson's second term reached its conclusion, this state of affairs began to resurface. As President Madison took office, America, still a declared neutral power, was once again being exploited. Combatants on each side of the War of the Coalitions were again capturing American shipping as prizes of war. These acts led to debates on how America should conduct her neutrality. Some, including Madison, held that an increase in military spending would indicate a hostile nature belying the country's neutrality. Indeed, if Great Britain were to notice an increase in warships patrolling the oceans, her government would grow resentful of the increased American presence on the oceans. Rather than implementing this strategy, the President desired to enact economic sanctions against opposing powers. This tactic, put in place until American shipping rights were respected on the high seas, would ensure that Great Britain and France suffered from their actions while America continued to maintain her peaceful mantle of neutrality. [16]

            Conversely, others held a different approach to neutrality. They argued that instead of utilizing economic restrictions, the United States must adopt an "'energetic' neutrality." This policy indicated a level of armed impartiality, which "necessarily implied increased defense expenditures, especially on the navy." With increased armament, some argued, America would be respected as a power ready for war; thus, her shipping rights would be respected.[17]

          France, on the other hand, was able to justify her exploitation of neutral American shipping through the actions of Great Britain. "To hear it from Paris, London had started this cycle of depredation, having been the first to violate the rights of neutral carriers. France was merely responding in kind. What Britain had begun Britain must end. Only then would France follow suit." Because the British were gaining through their attacks on U.S. shipping, France reasoned that they could as well. Napoleon, writing to his Minister of Justice, ordered that captures of American shipping be "settled on the spot; there can be no doubt about the matter." If Great Britain would violate America's neutrality, France, attacked on all sides, could also not afford to honor the United States' impartiality.[18]

            Because of this, a growing resentment towards France was again born among Americans. In fact, the British and French exploitation of American rights and goods fostered so much anger within the United States, that another war was eventually declared. In 1812, President Madison led his country to war against Great Britain. However, another vital and relatively unknown fact must come to light here. "Shortly before Congress declared war on Britain in June 1812, the United States Senate came within two votes of declaring war on France as well." Indeed, this fact indicates a truly incredible shift. Only thirty years previous, France and the United States had signed a treaty of alliance. Each state had since come to abuse the other for personal gain, abandoning the friendship established through the 1778 Treaty of Alliance. How can this dynamic shift be accounted for?[19]

            After examining the evidence, it becomes clear that Great Britain's involvement with and relations to the other two countries is the primary cause for their deterioration of Franco-American diplomatic amity. Mutual hatred of Great Britain brought France and the United States together amidst the American War of Independence. Similarly, it was America's reestablishment of friendship with Great Britain through the 1794 Jay's Treaty that would launch France and the United States into its harrowing diplomatic decline. The XYZ Affair was largely caused by Jay's Treaty; the Quasi-War was a result of the XYZ Affair. Later, the Louisiana Purchase was conducted by Napoleon in order to gain resources for his combat against Great Britain. Finally, it was Great Britain's continual abuse of American neutrality that caused France to respond likewise, further worsening Franco-American diplomacy. Every aspect of the diplomatic deterioration can be traced to Great Britain's involvement.

                As a result of  mutual abhorrence of Great Britain at the end of the Eighteenth Century, coupled with America's struggle for independence, an alliance between America and France was born. However, this amity soon fell into decline as a result of diplomatic miscommunications brought about by Great Britain's interaction with the other two states. By the outset of the War of 1812, Franco-American relations were on the verge of outright declared war. While rather extraordinary, this dynamic shift is truly reflective of its tumultuous age, a time in which humanity transitioned into the modern world.

---

[1] Hunter Miller, ed., "Treaty of Alliance Between The United States and France; February 6, 1778" in Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1931). Accessed April 22nd, 2011 from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fr1788-2.asp ; Jonathan R. Dull, A Diplomatic History of the American Revolution (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985), 89-96.

[2] J.G.A. Stagg, Mr. Madison's War: Politics, Diplomacy, and Warfare in the Early American republic, 1783–1830 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), 253-256.

[3] Miller, ed., "The Jay's Treaty; November 19, 1794" in Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America.  Accessed April 22nd, 2011 from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/jay.asp.

[4] Peter J. Albert and Ronald Hoffman, eds., Diplomacy and Revolution: The Franco-American Alliance of 1798 (Charlottesville VA: University Press of Virginia, 1981), 172-173.

[5] William C. Stinchcombe, The American Revolution and the French Alliance (New York: Syracuse University Press, 1969), 209.

[6] R. R. Palmer, "The Dubious Democrat: Thomas Jefferson in Bourbon France" in Political Science Quarterly, Sept. 1957, 388. Accessed April 18th, 2011 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2145325 ; John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, eds. "Proclamation 4 - Neutrality of the United States in the War Involving Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, and the United Netherlands Against France" in The American Presidency Project. Accessed April 19th, 2011 from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=65475 .

[7] William C. Stinchcombe, The XYZ Affair (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980), 56-57.

[8] Alexander DeConde, The Quasi-War: The Politics and Diplomacy of the Undeclared War with France 1797-1801 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1966), 125.

[9] Ibid, 125.

[10] Ibid, 127-129.

[11] Ibid, 194 ; An Act in Addition to the Act, Entitled "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States, July 14th, 1798. Accessed April 22nd, 2011 from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/sedact.asp ; An Act Respecting Alien Enemies, July 6th, 1798. Accessed April 22nd, 2011 from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/alien.asp .

[12] Alexander DeConde, The Quasi-War: The Politics and Diplomacy of the Undeclared War with France 1797-1801, 285-288.

[13] Ibid, 256.

[14] Hunter Miller, ed., " France - Convention of 1800" in Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1931). Accessed April 26th, 2011 from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fr1788-2.asp .

[15] The Louisiana Purchase, National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed April 23rd, 2011 from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/louistxt.html ; Robert M. Johnstone, Jr., Jefferson and the Presidency: Leadership in the Young Republic (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978), 67-75.

[16] J.G.A. Stagg, Mr. Madison's War, 53-85.

[17] Ibid, 53-85.

[18] Peter P. Hill, Napoleon's Troublesome Americans: Franco-American Relations, 1804-1815 (Washington D.C.: Potomac Books, 2005), 21. ; Mary Loyd, trans., Letter to M. Regnier in New Letters of Napoleon I (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1897), 248.

[19] Peter P. Hill, Napoleon's Troublesome Americans: Franco-American Relations, 1804-1815, ix.

Bibliography

Albert, Peter J., and Ronald Hoffman, eds., Diplomacy and Revolution: The Franco-American Alliance of 1798. Charlottesville VA: University Press of Virginia, 1981.

"An Act in Addition to the Act, Entitled "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States, July 14th, 1798."" The Avalon Project. Accessed April 22nd, 2011 from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/sedact.asp .

"An Act Respecting Alien Enemies, July 6th, 1798." The Avalon Project. Accessed April 22nd, 2011 from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/alien.asp .

DeConde, Alexander. The Quasi-War: The Politics and Diplomacy of the Undeclared War with France 1797-1801. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1966.

Dull, Jonathan R.. A Diplomatic History of the American Revolution. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985.

Hill, Peter P.. Napoleon's Troublesome Americans: Franco-American Relations, 1804-1815. Washington D.C.: Potomac Books, 2005

Johnstone Jr., Robert M.. Jefferson and the Presidency: Leadership in the Young Republic. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978.

"The Louisiana Purchase." National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed April 23rd, 2011 from http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/american_originals/louistxt.html .

Loyd, Mary, trans.. Letter to M. Regnier in New Letters of Napoleon I. New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1897.

Miller, Hunter, ed.. "France - Convention of 1800" in Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1931.  Accessed April 26th, 2011 from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fr1788-2.asp .

Miller, Hunter, ed.. "The Jay's Treaty; November 19, 1794" in Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1931.  Accessed April 22nd, 2011 from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fr1788-2.asp .

Miller, Hunter, ed.."Treaty of Alliance Between The United States and France; February 6, 1778" in Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1931.  Accessed April 22nd, 2011 from http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fr1788-2.asp .

Palmer, R. R.. "The Dubious Democrat: Thomas Jefferson in Bourbon France" in Political Science Quarterly, Sept. 1957. Accessed April 18th, 2011 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2145325 .

Peters, Gerhard, and John T. Woolley, eds.. "Proclamation 4 - Neutrality of the United States in the War Involving Austria, Prussia, Sardinia, Great Britain, and the United Netherlands Against France" in The American Presidency Project. Accessed April 19th, 2011 from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=65475 .

Stagg, J.G.A..  Mr. Madison's War: Politics, Diplomacy, and Warfare in the Early American Republic, 1783–1830. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983.

Stinchcombe, William C.. The American Revolution and the French Alliance. New York: Syracuse University Press, 1969.

Stinchcombe, William C.. The XYZ Affair. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980.

Napoleon Sighting #008: Napoleonic Cinema

           

            While Napoleon possessed meteoritic skills that propelled him to greatness in his own time, irony remains for his legacy. During his own era, contemporaries among the British Isles attempted to demonize him for his success. Sadly, they, and the other Coalition powers, could not let the people of France determine their own government, philosophy, and lives. As such, Napoleon has been labeled as a tyrant or worse. Truly, I find this, along with the Ancien Régime's attempts to remove Revolutionary ideas from France, to be the most appalling notion of the era.

            Yet, this tragic trend continues today. Throughout my blog, I have listed examples of how British stereotypes by Napoleon's contemporaries have continued to be pervasive in modern society. Additionally, I have tried to dispel these heinous lies and provide the true portrayal of the past. However, as I mentioned, these stereotypes continue to infest modern perceptions of L'Empereur.

            Perhaps this crime is most apparent in modern works of cinema regarding the Napoleonic epic. Although several accurate films exist, largely, the Emperor is debased through modern cinematic representations of him. In this Sighting, I will examine several such travesties.

The Count of Monte Cristo

            One of my favorite films (and favorite authors, for that matter) is the 2002 version of Alexandre Dumas' The Count of Monte Cristo. However, while Napoleon is only briefly shown, the display is dishonorable. In the film, Napoleon gives his word of honor that a missive to be delivered in secret is of a civilian nature. He lies, and as a result, Edmund Dantes spends miserable years in prison. This depiction is a plot device used by Dumas, who (perhaps justifiably) hated Napoleon. Dumas' father was a Napoleonic general who was captured by enemies of Napoleonic France and then ignored by the Emperor. This resulted from previous, hard feelings between Dumas' father and Napoleon. Despite several petitions of assistance, Dumas' father was left in prison; he died and the Dumas family was essentially impoverished. As such, Dumas used his writing to often defame the Emperor. Thus, it is likely Dumas' fault that this film takes such a negative view of Napoleon; however, Napoleon was a man of his word and adhered to a code of honor. Such a false exchange is truly fictitious.

            Several years ago, my friends and I attended Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian. Regardless of the movie's lacking merits, its depiction of Napoleon was again intolerable. The film pits the hero, a museum night guard, against several historic personas whose mannequins have come to life. These evil antagonists include a despotic pharaoh, Al Capone, Attila the Hun, Ivan the Terrible, and...Napoleon. Sitting amidst the theater seats, my temper began to rise. Napoleon, a man renowned for enacting democratic reforms, was lumped with a pharaoh, who was considered a god and respected as such by his enslaved subjects. Napoleon, a man who refused to go to war without excessive provocation, was compared to a barbarian cavalryman known as the "Scourge of God." Napoleon, whose Civil Code protected the human rights of his subject, was compared to a Ivan the Terrible, a Russian Tsar whose sobriquet describes him perfectly. Finally, in a moment of base ridiculousness, Napoleon was compared to an unrepentant murderer and gangster, Al Capone. I found each comparison to be unfounded, but on top of this, Napoleon was depicted as short, always wearing his bicorn, and constantly thrusting his hand into his coat: inane stereotypes abound!

            I could list more films, such as Despicable Me's despicable placement of Napoleon in the Hall of Evil. Or Master and Commander: the Far Side of the World, which (as seen through British perspective) finds it fitting to denounce Napoleon I, Emperor of the French as "Old Boney" and compare him in apparent tyranny to the reign of Nero. However, I believe I've expounded enough. Simply put, modern cinema aggravatingly continues the trend of demonizing Napoleon. Perhaps as awareness of this historic travesty is gained, such fallacies will cease to exist in films dealing with or citing the period.

Despicable Indeed

"Men of Eagles" Released for Nook!

Men of Eagles: Volume I is now available for purchase at the Barnes and Noble website. This work can now be read on your Nook reading device.

Find my work here:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Men-of-Eagles/Michael-Seeley/e/2940012232441/?itm=4&USRI=michael+seeley

Men of Eagles Promo Video

 

Here is a promotional video for my new book. Enjoy!

Publishing "Men of Eagles: Volume I"

   If you have been following my blog, you know that I have been working on the construction of a collection of short stories about Napoleon. It is my distinct and exciting pleasure to announce the publication of the first volume of these stories.

   This published book is titled "Men of Eagles: Volume I" and can be located at the following link: http://www.amazon.com/Men-Eagles-I-ebook/dp/B004LZ55GY/ref=pd_rhf_p_t_2

   "Men of Eagles" is a sprawling compilation of tales that depicts the sorrow and triumph of an incredibly complex time. Comprising a time span of the entire Napoleonic Era, as well as several stories from the preceding Revolutionary Era, the book shows the heroic exploits of men like Napoleon, Ney, and Murat. However, the unsung soldiers of the age have tales to offer as well; "Men of Eagles" grants them a canvas on which to paint the story of their lives.

   The work invokes several questions about love and loyalty. One story, "Rise and Rise Again¸" provides a conversation of letters between lovers amid the wars of the age. We see their burgeoning love for each other and France through treasured, shared correspondences. "A Loyal Betrayal" displays Auguste Marmont, a troubled soldier faced with opposition from foreign enemies, as well as abandonment by a cherished friend he once loved. And "The Fallen Eagle" offers a singular glimpse into the mind of the condemned, as Marshal Joachim Murat revels in memory as he awaits his fate.

   This first volume of the "Men of Eagles" series presents the reader with five thought-provoking tales about the nature of war, sorrow, and contentment in an age often overlooked.

   I'd humbly ask that you'd consider the purchase of my work. While the website is for Kindle, it can also be read on a PC, Mac, Ipad, Iphone, Blackberry, or Android, so if you don't own a Kindle, don't' worry! There's plenty of devices that will read it. If you think any of your friends would also be interested, by all means, please tell them about it and invite them!

   Also, if you do decide to buy a copy, please, please, please leave a review. Reviews are the largest determiner of a book's popularity and thus success. So, I'd be incredibly appreciative if you'd take a few moments to review it as well.

   Again, thank you all. It means so much to me to have your support.

My Current Task: the Crafting of the Novel, "Men of Eagles."

            While I thoroughly enjoy the art of fine research and nonfictional study, the chance to create my own world amid a time of giants is too enticing to resist. While sources are plentiful on the heroic tales of Napoleon, Murat, Ney, LaSalle, and even Wellington, and Blucher, providing fictional interpretations of their characters has always fascinated me. As such, I have embarked upon a personal project to write a compilation of tales regarding Napoleonic commanders and soldiers.

            This work, tentatively entitled Men of Eagles, will hopefully comprise a time span of the entire Napoleonic Era, as well as several stories from the preceding Revolutionary Era. If you have been following my blog or have me as a friend on Facebook, you know that I have provided several previews into my work. In fact, there is an entire story on this site later to be featured in Men of Eagles.

            While I have provided glimpses into the lives of the famous, such as Joachim Murat and Michel Ney, other unknown men have given their tales as well. One story, Rise and Rise Again¸ provides a conversation of letters between lovers amid the wars of the age. We see their burgeoning love for each other and La France through treasured, shared correspondences. Other stories provide a sweeping view on the battles that shaped Europe's history during this era. Marching with Michel Ney through the blizzards of wintery Russia, we forsake frustration for courage and success for survival. Additionally, General Jean Baptiste Kléber suppresses rebellions among the aged pyramids of Egypt as he mourns for the needless loss of his enemies' lives.

            A sprawling compilation that, hopefully, depicts the sorrow and triumph of an incredibly complex era, Men of Eagles is still a work in progress. As I must bear the wonderful weight of relationships, work, and scholastic study, little time seems to be left for devotion to writing. In spite of this, I have managed to complete, I feel, a rather praise-worthy amount of stories thus far. With any luck, this book will be done by the end of next summer or fall. Then comes the editing process and the search for publication. I am also considering its release on www.podiobooks.com, a wonderful site devoted to the exposition of new and exciting works through free audio-book, serial podcasts. Regardless, the process of completing this work is a challenge and a boon for me, and we will have to see what develops. For now, I will strive onwards, and continue to provide updates as the book proceeds.

Napoleon Sighting #007: A Final Betrayal - Murder on St. Helena

         Perhaps the most vicious of crimes is murder, yet, when this deed is coupled with political implications, its effects can be even further devastating. Political murder, or assassination, leaves a people reeling and a system in shock. As such, it is truly harmful. If done masterfully though, the crime can be concealed. This has occurred with the murder of Napoleon Bonaparte, whose assassination was not discovered for many years, while the factuality of the deed's occurrence is still debated. Indeed, the murder of Napoleon is a monumental crime in European history, an offence only recently revealed by scientific examination and documentation.

            Napoleon Bonaparte's multi-faceted ingenuity provided for his meteoric rise to power. He eventually became the Emperor of the French and used his position to better his people's lives. Yet, foreign powers could not abide with the republican principles of the French Revolution that Napoleon furthered. As such, martial coalitions were formed to remove him from the throne. Eventually, these foreign alliances were successful, Napoleon was exiled to St. Helena, a tiny island in the Atlantic, and the Bourbon ruler, King Louis XVIII, was placed upon the throne of France.

            Upon his exile, Napoleon's military and political careers were at an end. However, monarchical supporters of King Louis XVIII in France felt that exile was not sufficient for removing his influence. Their fears did have precedent; after the War of the Sixth Coalition in 1814, Napoleon was exiled to  Elba, a Mediterranean island. Upon receiving reports of France's worsening condition under her new ruler, the Emperor returned from exile and once again took control of the country amid heartfelt support of the French. Yet, another military coalition defeated him once more, and he was exiled for a second time. Regardless, there was still fear that Napoleon might return yet again to further his influence on France. Louis XVIII could not abide with this possibility. As such, supporters of the French king enacted a plan to forever remove Napoleon's influence; they resolved to murder him.

            Among the small entourage that traveled with Napoleon into exile, one man was chosen to carry out the heinous crime. This man, Count Charles de Montholon, was trusted completely by Napoleon. Yet, he was a vicious traitor; the Bourbon monarchy supplied him with a large sum of money to kill Napoleon. Ironically though, the Count was able to manipulate Napoleon's distrustful nature so that he, the murderer, was the only one the Emperor trusted. Because of this, de Montholon was given charge over Napoleon's wine supply. He then began to slowly lace the Emperor's wine with arsenic. This common rat poison worked itself through Napoleon's blood and over a period of several months caused his health to deteriorate. Additionally, a lethal dose was then given to Napoleon two days before his death. As his health was already flagging, the results of this final dose were simply seen by others as natural. On May the 5th, 1821, Napoleon died. Because of the assassin's use of prolonged poisoning, the death of Napoleon was initially contributed to natural causes and labeled the result of a stomach ulcer. Yet, with the emergence of modern technology and the discovery of telling documents, the true nature of this crime has now come to the fore.

            Dr. Ben Weider, a leading expert on Napoleonic studies and President of the International Napoleonic Society, and a toxicologist/dentist, Dr. Sten Forshufvud, distrusted the accepted story of Napoleon's death. As such, they began research into the matter amid the late 1960s. Their initial theory was based upon several key pieces of evidence. Eyewitness accounts of the Emperor's final months described the man exhibiting signs of chronic arsenic poisoning, not cancerous illness. Additionally, Napoleon's body was exhumed in 1840 for return to France. Instead of showing two decades of deterioration, the corpse was unchanged, a key sign of arsenic poisoning, which prevents decomposition. With these facts, Dr. Weider and Dr. Forshufvud began delving into their theory.

            To confirm their theories, the men turned to Great Britain's Harwell Nuclear Laboratory, a highly prestigious institution specializing, in part, in the field of toxicology. Harwell's labs had recently developed a technology which allowed for the toxicological examination of hair strands. Through stringent study over decades of research, locks of Napoleon's hair were examined for arsenic poisoning, and the results were telling. The lab found that over the course of 120 days, arsenic had been consumed by the Emperor. Additionally, a lethal dose was discovered only days before the man's death; its harmful effects concealed by the man's deteriorating health. The tests' conclusions were staggering, and the men were lauded; Dr. Weider even received the Legion of Honor from France's President.

            Further tests were run by the FBI, which also confirmed Harwell's results. Additionally, the discovery of a written confession by Count de Montholon effectively reinforces and proves the studies' conclusions. Instead of simply relying upon logic or even Montholon's confession, the theories were scientifically researched and proven. Repeated tests showed similar results, and this indicates, a successful and admirable investigation.

            Yet, not all were convinced. To some, the fact that his own people had murdered Napoleon caused fierce denial by French historians. These apologists claim that the poisoning was conducted naturally through the man's mere proximity to items already containing arsenic, like wallpaper and hair products. Additionally, they decry de Montholon's confession as a forgery, created by the proponents of Napoleon's murder to further their case. Yet, these feeble arguments lack conclusive scientific testing and documentation of de Montholon's innocence. As such, I cannot support even the possibility of this position's validity. In spite of this position's flaws, it has been accepted by those who wish  to absolve Louis XVIII and his supporters. Because of this, a fierce debate has raged over the cause of Napoleon's death for years.

            Napoleon Bonaparte's assassination was a vicious attack on a defeated man whose ambition was ended. This political murder, although initially concealed by its ingenuity, has finally been revealed through documentation and conclusive scientific testing. Because of this, the pernicious nature of the man's killer has been shown, and justice, if flawed by the elapse of time, has been attainted through this revelation of truth.