I didn’t know, so I had to look. That’s a bit of a rabbit hole, but it looks like the answer is Patrice de MacMahon, or maybe Adolphe Theirs.
If you’re talking more in abstractly in the sense of political ideology, it’s kinda tough to say. The government was less than a year old, fresh out of the imperial monarchy of Napoleon III, recovering from their losses to Prussia.
MacMahon was Napoleon III’s Marshal, it’s not a stretch to imagine he may have harbored imperialist sentiments.
Thiers was certainly more liberal, which only goes to reinforce my point that liberals aren’t inherently bad at revolutions. He was in the middle of his own revolution (again) and dissolved the Commune’s revolution in a month’s time.
You’d be right to take issue with the Bloody Week for other reasons, but you can’t say it supports the idea that liberals can’t do revolutions.
Remember who slaughtered many thousands of civilians at the Paris Commune.
I didn’t know, so I had to look. That’s a bit of a rabbit hole, but it looks like the answer is Patrice de MacMahon, or maybe Adolphe Theirs.
If you’re talking more in abstractly in the sense of political ideology, it’s kinda tough to say. The government was less than a year old, fresh out of the imperial monarchy of Napoleon III, recovering from their losses to Prussia.
MacMahon was Napoleon III’s Marshal, it’s not a stretch to imagine he may have harbored imperialist sentiments.
Thiers was certainly more liberal, which only goes to reinforce my point that liberals aren’t inherently bad at revolutions. He was in the middle of his own revolution (again) and dissolved the Commune’s revolution in a month’s time.
You’d be right to take issue with the Bloody Week for other reasons, but you can’t say it supports the idea that liberals can’t do revolutions.