Jean Francois
Posted on 12/05/2005 5:00:58 PM PST by RWR8189
The divergence of Britain from the Continent can be traced to Bonaparte's greatest victory 200 years ago -- and his enduring legacy.
IT IS IN Book III of "War and Peace" that Tolstoy memorably describes the Battle of Austerlitz — "the battle of the three emperors" — the 200th anniversary of which fell on Friday. This was the greatest victory of Napoleon Bonaparte's career. At the time, it seemed far more important than his navy's defeat at Trafalgar two months before. Its consequences are still with us.
By routing the combined armies of Austria and Russia, Austerlitz enabled Napoleon literally to redraw the map of Europe, conjuring up a new Confederation of the Rhine from the Baltic to the Alps.
Moreover, by obliging the Austrian Emperor Francis to renounce the title of Holy Roman Emperor, Napoleon snuffed out an institution that had been at the heart of Europe for more than a millennium.
Napoleon's idea of Europe was double-edged. On the one hand, he overthrew decadent dynasties such as the Bourbons of Naples and established what was to become the model for Continental legal systems, the Code Napoléon. Later, in exile, he claimed that he had "wished to found a European system, a European code of laws, a European judiciary" so that "there would be one people in Europe." Yet, at the same time, Napoleonic Europe was without question an authoritarian empire.
What finally killed Napoleon's Europe was the fatal combination of the English Channel and the Russian winter. Nevertheless, it proved impossible to restore the old pre-Napoleonic Europe.
Napoleon fell; Bonapartism lived on, with the civil code and economic dirigisme as perhaps its most enduring legacies.
And how they have endured! Ask yourself what are the biggest differences between England and the Continent?
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Alexander played right into his hands.
Common law embodies a heritage of freedom. The Code Napoleon embodies a heritage of state dictatorship.
To take the simplest example, common law assumes that you are innocent until proven guilty. Under the Code Napoleon, the state can convict you of a crime unless you prove yourself innocent.
I'm sure the LAT knows this, or at least certainly should know it. But they lean toward state socialism, so they really don't understand the benefits of common law, one of the important sources of our own Constitutional system.
Soon, a new Napoleon will come to Europe...one that will bring free-market reforms, a stable currency, and realize that the immigrants are not European, will never be European, and should not be allowed to stay, and will remove them. We must still retain hope. Our cousins can still be saved!!
Jean Francois
This is a slippery slope. First you get codex law and next will be metric system!
Look at the cops in the background, joshing with each other. They know a nancy-boy when they see one.
The UK & Ireland and much of Eastern Europe belong in NAFTA with the USA.
Let the Euros pound sand.
This is not true. You are repeating false myths. The main difference between common laws and codex laws is that while the first are product of centuries of additions and patches starting from tribal past, the later are designed whole in a planned way.
Common laws are like feet/pounds/gallons. Codex law is like meters/kilograms/liters.
Even the countries which were glad to get rid of Napoleon did not want to return to archaic tribal laws
Sure, Napoleon replaced bad feudal laws with good ones. But the system maintains feudalism. Look at Mexico.
Common law grows, learns.
An illustration of the difference between Common Law and the Code can be seen in the understanding of "Rights." In the Anglosphere, there are a core set that pre-date the existence of the civil power and cannot be diminished by it (Jefferson's "Life, Libery and the Pursuit of Happiness.") The Code acknowledges no rights save those spelled out in the Code itself. Rights are thus a creature of the Code and therefore malleable by whoever has the power to amend the Code.
"Libery" = oh, brother.
Polish law is based on codexes and it is not feudal - codexes meant exactly the death of feudalism. Also codex law "grows" and "learns" - there is a revision or a new codex made as a lucid and coherent whole every couple of decades if needed.
BTW, Americans DID import this French idea of the coherent logical legal structure. It is US Constitution.
Common law is a huge mass of improvised patches accumulated over countless generations. It grew beyond capacity of an intelligent person to grasp and even lawyers cannot understand it completely. That is why expensive lawyers can be so much better and that is why common law is perfect for the lawyers.
I agree it's in effect a sort of "codification" of common law (as are amendments). But it was limited. Mostly to foreign and interstate affairs. The states continued common law for practically everything that mattered. They have had to make frequent "recodifications" over the years
Having adversaries before a jury and judge is expensive and wasteful. I think the lessons learned there are better than those learned through reviews of specialists (or insisted on by the peasantry). It's like experimentalism in science vs peer review. You've got to have both.
I suspect I had would find much feudalism at the heart of Polish law, but I haven't examined it. There is much feudalism in the common law. Those "pre-existing rights" one poster mentioned were once only held by nobles. Every where but the US the law, in tradition and history, is a tool for treating the peasantry so they give the least trouble to the nobles.
Common Law is a sharp stick in the eye of Fabian Socialism as well as everything more extreme than it.
Of course! Napoleon did not invent the codex law. He implemented it. The idea of codices/constitution was developed in XVIII century France and had earlier antecedents in Christian Roman law (Justinian Codex)
Having adversaries before a jury and judge is expensive and wasteful.
In continental law you can have SEVERAL judges acting as a jury and chain of appeals before DIFFERENT judges from different court.
I suspect I had would find much feudalism at the heart of Polish law, but I haven't examined it.
The reverse is true - it is the common caw that contains feudal elements. Modern continental law is in such relationship to the common law as kilograms and meters are to pounds and yards .
Serfdom was abolished in Europe BEFORE slavery was abolished in USA. And Napoleon had his share in it.
"Common law is a huge mass of improvised patches accumulated over countless generations. It grew beyond capacity of an intelligent person to grasp and even lawyers cannot understand it completely. That is why expensive lawyers can be so much better and that is why common law is perfect for the lawyers."
Wake up and smell the cajun hot sauce. Louisiana law is based on Napoleonic code. It sucks.
It is extremely expensive. Try getting a divorce here in Louisiana - people get stuck in the divorce system for YEARS.
Civil law only means what the 'civilians' say it means. Funnily enough, often the very people writing the laws are the ones interpreting it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.