Napoleon Bonaparte And The Legacy Of The French Revolution

In this essay I will argue that a citizen’s ability to revolt in the context of budding concepts of nationalism uncover a symbiotic part to whole relationship in which the value for an ideal citizen begins to radically shift from a place of miseducation and inability to one of power, where a citizens fundamental importance is in their dichotomous ability to maintain or destroy government through affirmation and revolt. With the culmination of the French Revolution in Napoleonic rule, Martyn Lyons explains in Napoleon Bonaparte and the Legacy of the French Revolution, “The abolition of privilege, equality before the law, and the notion of careers open to talent were enshrined in this and every subsequent legal code designed for a democratic

The United States of America as an explanation of a modern republic displays the relationship between government, leaders, and citizens. This taxonomy of the United States builds upon its fundamental core value: the individual. The capitalization of the words, “Government,” “Men,” and “People” imply that these discrete categories are both significant and of the same intertwined typology with the people being what give “power” to the men and subsequently the government. It must not be understood in reverse where government is the omnipotent class, because the laws themselves explain that it is the “consent” of the People that instill government with its ruling power. That is not to shroud the importance of the governments role on the people; the term “consent” implies that this is truly consensual on both sides. In that way, the government is a being that functions best through the action of a certain type of citizen. The state of equilibrium between government and citizen happens through the simultaneous and mutual definition of one by the other—citizen defining government and vice

In Renan’s What is a Nation? he describes how “a nation’s existence is (please excuse the metaphor) a daily plebiscite, just as an individual’s existence is a perpetual affirmation of life” (Renan). The word “nation” implies the notion that this is a body of citizens, of individuals, who’s constituent parts in concert create the larger body of a nation. Without what is considered by Renan to be a “daily plebiscite” the nation would not exist… or rather, the daily plebiscite exists as a function of a nation. It is integral to the existence of a nation that this daily ritual of voting be understood as something that is consciously or unconsciously participated in. He creates a metaphor that equates this type of inactive voting with an act all humans do that is somewhat imperceptible; such as, the necessity of “existence” to “life.” This overstatement and simplification of the notion that everyday just by living someone is agreeing with and affirming their own life and subsequently their adherence to a nation also brings us to a profound understanding that the life of a nation, just like one’s own individual life is completely in their control. It is the frequently non-debated decision of shall I continue to exist that binds the human unknowingly to the comfort of belonging to a nation. Whether aware or not, all citizens have an inherent power with which they