User:Dr. Paul Reiter

My name is Paul Reiter. In 1998 I wrote a doctoral thesis at the Leibniz-Universität in Hannover (cf. Reiter, Paul, Die Antiziption der modernen Demokratie, Achille Murats Modell der modernen Gesellschaft auf der Grundlage des nordamrikanischen Vorbildes im 19. Jahrhundert, Hagen 1998; ISBN 3-933842-01-8). It is about Achille Murat (1801-1847), a French immigrant, who came to America in 1823 to live in the USA and to write in his precocious oeuvre about American democracy and about the differences between the American and the French Revolutions (1776 - 1789 - 1830). He incarnates transcontinental revolutionary thinking. My doctoral thesis is listed among others in the Library of Congress Online Catalog (call number: JC421. R42 1998) and in the Integrated Catalogue of the British Library(shelfmark: YA.2001.a.32389).

Hereby you have an abstract of the essence of his works:

Achille Murat (1801-1847), who emigrated from Europe to the USA at the age of 22 to escape the repression of the Restoration under Metternich, tried to mediate politically and through his literary work between the old continent and the new American democratic system, which he wanted to take as a model, despite its inherent contradictions, for the development of democracy in Europe. However, the œuvre of his precocious, keen intellect attracted only ephemeral attention in the public opinion of the time on either side of the Atlantic, in part because of the success of Alexis de Tocqueville's work, which he had inspired. On the one hand, Murat, a nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte, finally failed politically and hence also on a personal level in the Europe of the 1840s. On the other, his personal biography in the USA combined with his transcontinental, 'democratic' mediator role was eminently precarious. In contrast to the earlier 'invention' of an idealistic, pacifist America by loyalist Jean-Guillaume de Crèvecœur, Murat designed a disillusive, 'realistic' democratic model, which was on the one hand revolutionary as regards the analysis of the European states and, on the other, conservative within the spectrum of the democrats. In the USA democratic institutions were first enshrined in society before an attempt was made to resolve socio-economic problems, in contrast to the French Revolution of 1789. Taking this approach as an example, Murat, a fierce critic of the 1830 July monarchy, postulated the unrestricted right to vote and to freedom of expression as well as an independent press as constituents of a healthy democratic state. His vision of an irreversible democratisation process following the North American example has finally proved true in today's Europe. Murat's modern republican-fedederalist state embodies Saint-Simon's principle of economics as the basis for politics. An atheist and Utalitarian, Murat links modern democracy with the market economy: In keeeping with the principles of social eudemonism and bourgeois working ethics, 'everyman' has opportunities for social advancement in a society based on economic liberalism, in which private property is potentially a universal civil right. In Murat's dynamic but merciless meritocratic and competitive society, socio-economic marginalisation is an accepted fact: For him, a sharp critic of all egalitarian ideas of early socialism, absolute (political) freedom is incompatible with absolute (social) equality. In contrast to Tocqueville i.a., Murat does not bequeath us the 'negative' utopia of a faceless, democratic egalitarianism. He attacks the European hubris which consisted in reproaching the United States for institutionalizing mediocrity and inability to attain excellence in literature, art and science, something which, according to this European point of view, was inherent in democracy. However, in Murat's view, literature and art - ideally free of any kind of state manipulation and support - could be no more than a pastime for citizens actively participating in economic and political affairs. As for politicians, 'public opinion' henceforth played the role of the sword of Damocles for writers, too, as the reception of Cooper's work showed. For Murat, the primacy of natural sciences implies that scientific progress is used - without any ethical restriction - for technology, industrialization, urbanisation and military technology. The darkest aspect of Murat's œuvre is his defence - and that of his biographer Alfred J. Hanna - of the slaveholders in the Southern States, who at the same time were fervent supporters of Republican ideals. Murat, himself a slaveholding farmer and lawyer, abused his role of inter-continental mediator by propagating racist prejudices and advancing economic and legal justification for this perversion of human rights. Thus he contributed to his own isolation from 'public opinion' in Europe. Nonetheless, he considered slavery to be untenable in the long term. Murat overtly defended the anti-liberal and belligerent elements of 'democratic foreign politics' and, in contrast to Crèvecœur's pacifist ideal, he incited the allegedly perfectible white man to colonialism and imperialism. As early as the 1830s he prophesied the future ambivalent role of US foreign politics. Hanna's scientific attempt to totally rehabilitate Murat was a failure. Instead, Hanna effectively mirrors the relics of antidemocratic and inhumane thinking of the modern 'public', including the scientific community. In the 19th century Achille Murat already propagated the appalling vision of an ambivalent model of democracy, to which neither Alfred J. Hanna nor Henry Blumenthal make reference. The view of the United States of America in French 'public opinion' of the time has also been a chronicle of arbitrary, contradictory reception - depending on the respective political standpoint, as demonstrated by René Rémond. In the 19th century, Murat's novel view of democracy could satisfy neither the critics nor the supporters of American democracy; the proselytes of social progress in particular could only condemn his outrageous message. In contrast to Crèvecœur's socially harmonious and pacifist-idealistic vision of society, Murat's modern, open and dynamic society is characterized by the permanent conflict between idealists and pragmatists, conservatives and progressives, which is the very essence of modern society.

His works, which were also translated in different languages, are the following:

Murat, Achille, Esquisse morale et politique des Etats-Unis de l'Amérique du Nord, Paris 1832. Ders., Exposition des principes du gouvernement républicain, tel qu'il a été perfectionné en Amérique, Paris 1833. Ders., Letter Book: 1830-1835, Begunn [sic!] at Lipona on the 25th of October 1830, Ended at New Orleans on the 28th of November 1835, Paris (Bibliothèque Nationale), NAF (Nouvelle acquisition française) 20 942. Ders., Lettres sur les Etats-Unis, par le Prince Achille Murat, fils de l'ex-roi de Naples, à un de ses amis d'Europe, Paris 1830. Ders., The United States of North America, With a Note on Negro Slavery by William B. Adams, London 21833.