An essay in universal history from an Orthodox Christian Point ofView part the age of revolution

49. NAPOLEON III, THE MASONS AND ITALY

As we have seen, one of the reasons for the failure of the 1848 revolution was that the Masons drew back from taking the revolution to its logical extreme. This is understandable - most Masons were wealthy men. However, it is still surprising, and worthy of investigation, why they should have blessed (eventually) the formation of a dictatorship in France under Louis Napoleon.

Jasper Ridley writes: "On 10 December 1848 the election was held for the new President of the Republic. The Freemasons' journal, Le Franc-Maçon, called on its readers to vote for Lamartine [though he was not a Mason], because he believed in 'the sacred words, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity'; but Louis Napoleon Bonaparte (who would soon become the Emperor Napoleon III) was elected by a very large majority; he defeated Cavaignac, Ledru-Rollin, the Socialist François Raspail, and Lamartine, receiving 75 per cent of the votes cast, and coming top of the poll in all except four of the eighty-five departments of France. He was the son of Louis Bonaparte, King of Holland, and in his youth had been involved in the revolutionary movement in Italy in 1831. It has been suggested that he joined the Carbonari and the Freemasons in Italy, but this cannot be proved. He afterwards tried twice to make a revolution against Louis Philippe, and on the second occasion was sentenced to life imprisonment in the fortress at Ham near St Quentin in north-eastern France; but he made a sensational escape, took refuge in England, and returned to Paris to his electoral triumph in 1848.
"Although he had been suspected at one time of being a Communist, as soon as he was elected President of the Republic he relied on the support of the Right wing and the Catholic Church. Young Radicals who flaunted red cravats, and shouted 'Long live the Social Republic!' were sentenced to several years' imprisonment. From time to time a Freemasons' lodge was raided by the police, and warnings were sent by local officials to the government that 'members of the anarchist party' were planning to gain control of the Masonic lodges in Paris and the provinces.
"The Grand Orient thought it would be wise to revise their constitution. In 1839, when they were living happily under Louis Philippe, they had stated that 'Masonry is a universal philanthropic association' and that one of their objectives was 'the examination and discussion of all social and economic questions which concern the happiness of humanity'. In August 1848, after the June Days and the legislation suppressing secret political societies, they changed this article in their constitution by deleting the words 'social and economic'; and a year later, on 10 August 1849, Grand Orient stated that all Freemasons must believe in God and in the immortality of the soul."¹⁸⁷

When, in addition to this, Napoleon sent his troops to crush the Roman republic under Mazzini, it must have seemed that the Masons would now, at last, turn against him. And indeed, when he established his dictatorship on December 2, 1851, "there was an attempt at resistance in Paris next day, led by the deputy Baudin, a Freemason."¹⁸⁸ But Baudin was shot on the barricade; and when Napoleon held a plebiscite on whether he should continue as President for ten years, the Grand Orient called on all Masons to vote for him.

Some light is cast on this mystery by Tikhomirov: "According to the very weighty tome of Deschampes, the empire of Louis Napoleon was considered desirable. This became known to Deschampes through Michelet, who played an important role in revolutionary circles, but was a personal friend of Deschampes.

"Soon after the coup of 1851 (more precisely: on February 7, 1852), Michelet wrote to Deschampes: 'By this time a great convention of the heads of the European societies had taken place in Paris, where they discussed France. Only three members (whose leader was Mazzini) demanded a democratic republic. A huge majority thought that a dictatorship would better serve the work of the revolution - and the empire was decreed 'sur les promesses formelles' (on the basis of the formal promises) of Louis Napoleon to give all the forces of France to the services of Masonry. All the people of the revolution applied themselves to the success of the state coup. Narvaets, who was in obedience to Palmerston [British Prime Minister in 1855-1858 and from 1859], even loaned Louis Napoleon 500,000 francs not long before December 2.'

"If Napoleon III really gave 'formal promises', then this could refer only to the unification of Italy, and consequently, to the fate of the Pope's secular dominion. Deschampes has no evidence concerning Louis Napoleon's membership of Masonry, otherwise than in the form of Carbonarism. He had long belonged to the Carbonari in its Italian form, and as such was obliged to work for the unification of Italy. For breaking this oath he was pursued by attempts on his life, until, after Orsini's attempt [on his life], he renewed his promise and began to fulfil it, risking that the Pope would lose his dominions. But in general Masonry protected Napoleon III.¹⁸⁹ At any rate Palmerston, who had, as they affirm, been the highest leader of European Masonry (the Orient of Orients), supported Napoleon with all his strength, and, perhaps, would not have allowed his fall, if he had not died five years before the Franco-Prussian War."¹⁹⁰

So here we see why Napoleon was able to retain the support of the Masons, while supporting their mortal enemy, the Catholic Church, he had a very powerful friend, Lord Palmerston, the British Prime Minister, a former supreme head of Masonry. Nor, as we have seen, were the Catholics as irreconcilably opposed to the liberal revolution as before... And so Britain under Palmerston, France under Napoleon, the Pope and the Sultan all worked together to humble the real enemy of Masonry, Russia, in the Crimean War of 1854-1856, of which more in the next chapter...

But if Tikhomirov was right, there was another important reason why the Masons should have supported Napoleon: his support for the Italian revolution and weakening of the monarchical powers of Austria-Hungary and the Papacy. For in remarkable way, Napoleon III paralleled and continued his more famous uncle's work of destroying the old order in Europe.
Thus "in 1859," writes Philip Bobbitt, "France intervened in Italy after Napoleon III concluded a secret agreement with Cavour, the Piedmontese prime minister, providing that the kingdom of Piedmont would be extended into a Kingdom of Upper Italy to include Lombardy, Venetia, and the Romagna. France would receive Nice and Savoy. A Kingdom of Central Italy, composed of Tuscany, Parma, Modena, Umbria, and the Marches, would be given to Napoleon's cousin, Prince Napoleon. As with the French demands against the Ottoman Empire, French intrigue had singled out another vulnerable state-nation: the Austrian empire.
"Fighting broke out in April, most of the warfare taking place between French and Austrian forces. The battles of Magenta and Solferino were actually French victories, not those of the Piedmontese or Italian volunteers. The decision to cease fire was also French, and an agreement was signed between Napoleon III and the Austrian emperor Francis Joseph on July 11, 1859. This truce clearly sacrificed Italian nationalism to French ambitions. Lombardy was given to Piedmont but Venetia remained with the Austrians. Nothing was said of the French agreement with Cavour. The settlement ignited a firestorm of reaction among the Italians, who had not been consulted. Cavour resigned his premiership. Assemblies called by Tuscany, Parma, Modena, and the Papal Legations [the northern Papal states] met and requested annexation by the kingdom of Piedmont.
"At first Napoleon III and fell back on a call for a European congress to settle the question of central Italy. This approach might have strengthened the system of collective security in Europe, but then, in December, he changed course. Relying on Britain, where Palmerston and his foreign secretary, Lord John Russell, supported the principle of self-determination, Napoleon III renewed the agreement between France and Piedmont. Cavour returned to power in less than a month.
"Piedmont annexed the Duchies and the Legations and promptly organized a plebiscite, based on universal suffrage, held in March 1860. The Piedmontese king, Victor Emmanuel, took over the new territories by decree. Elections to a single Italian parliament were held in Piedmont-Sardinia, Lombardy, the Duchies, and the Legations. The first task of this legislature was to ratify the annexations to Piedmont as well as those to France. The French annexations of Nice and Savoy had been similarly endorsed by local plebiscites.

"The French annexations, however, had enraged the Italian partisan leader Garibaldi (a native of Nice) and other Italian revolutionaries, and he mounted an insurrection in Sicily in April. The success of this insurrection, which was quickly joined by discontented peasants recruited by promises of land reform, prompted Cavour to dispatch officials to prepare plebiscites for annexation in the newly liberated areas. These officials Garibaldi expelled or avoided. When Garibaldi marched on Naples, Cavour planned a pre-emptive coup, but this failed, and Garibaldi entered Naples in September.

"Fearful of losing the leadership of the emerging unification movement to Garibaldi's partisans, Piedmont sent forces into the Papal States and defeated a Catholic army at Castelfidardo in mid-September. When Bourbon forces in the south began to gain ground against Garibaldi, the latter called on Piedmont for assistance. This permitted Cavour to announce to the parliament on October 2, 1860, that the revolution was at an end. Sicily and Naples were annexed after a plebiscite by universal suffrage on October 21.

"Italian unification was not quite complete. French troops remained in Rome, kept there by conservative pressure on Napoleon III, and it was not until the German victory at Sedan in 1870 that they were finally withdrawn. Nevertheless, without French determination to drive Austria from Italy, unification would not have happened at this time. Whether it was wise of Napoleon III to accomplish this is open to question; by weakening Austria, he removed the strongest check on Prussian ambitions to unify Germany, a development that could only threaten France in the long run…"¹⁹¹