The Damascus massacres altered the scale and significance to the whole crisis. Matters were no longer confined to a small portion of the Ottoman Empire, where the trials of two warring factions had formerly warranted the intervention of the European powers and the formulation of a special kind of administration. This time the tranquil and unarmed Christian population of one of the main towns of the Ottoman Empire had been slain without warning. The European reaction, public opinion and official circles alike, was at first indignant. Doubts were raised about the ability of the Ottoman authorities to govern these provinces, and indeed about the viability of the whole Ottoman Empire. The awakening of Muslim fanaticism was loudly denounced and its consequences feared.
The French minister again took the initiative, proposing the dispatch of a joint European military force to protect the Christian presence, contain the perceived Muslim fever, and restore order. With a deep sense of urgency and a hint of panic, he wrote to the other European courts: “At this time, do we know whether the carnage . . . will extend farther and whether Christian blood may be flowing in Aleppo, Diarbekir, Jerusalem, everywhere, in a word, where populations are confronted by fanaticism, stirred up by what has happened in Damascus and in Lebanon?”14
In such an inflamed atmosphere, Thouvenel was able to gain consent for his two proposals, albeit with serious misgivings by some, from the five European powers and the Porte for the establishment of a European Commission entrusted with the task of investigating the causes of the latest events and proposing measures guaranteeing against their recurrence, as well as for the dispatch of a French force to Syria to help the Ottoman authorities restore order and security. A convention for the deployment of a French force for a limited duration of six months was signed in Paris on August 3, and some 6,000 French soldiers left France for Syria.15 The Porte gave its consent to the convening of the commission on the condition that its deliberations be confined to revisions of the status of the Mountain. At the same time, the Ottoman government dispatched Fuad Pasha, minister for foreign affairs, as special envoy to Syria with full powers to adopt any measure he deemed fit in order to restore order and peace in the hope that such measures would undercut European intervention. He would fulfill this task impeccably.
The Damascus massacres had an equally critical effect on a more conceptual level. They altered and blurred the general perception of the events of 1860 in Mount Lebanon. The specific causes and origins of the latter became identified with those of Damascus and were solely attributed to an outburst of Muslim fanaticism aiming at eradicating the Christian presence in the region. In other words, the Damascus massacres obscured the specific political and socioeconomic factors of the outbreak of hostilities in Lebanon and vindicated the view attributing them exclusively to the baleful designs of an inflamed Muslim fanaticism. In simple terms, this view translated, in the case of Lebanon, into an Ottoman–Druze conspiracy to slay the innocent Maronites in the Mountain. Many French circles and publicists adopted this interpretation of events, conjecturing about the main intricacies and instigators of this baleful Muslim plot.16
These perceptions of the nature of the Syrian—Lebanese events altered accordingly the formulation of a solution for Lebanon. The ill-defined privileges of the Mountain, which some European powers, and especially France, had striven to defend in the early 1840s as a safeguard to the Lebanese or as an acquired right warranted by alleged historical antecedents,17 were now vindicated by new factors requiring more radical solutions. These alleged privileges were presented by many in Europe, and especially in France, as an essential guarantee against the failures of the Ottoman administration and a necessary protection for the Christians of this region against the perceived fanatical Muslim population. Their confirmation was not only solicited, but claims for their extension formulated, often reaching fantastic dimensions, such as the establishment of a Christian kingdom governed by a European prince.18 Naturally, the question arose as to why the Christians of Mount Lebanon alone should benefit from these guarantees and privileges, since the same causes and origins were attributed to the Damascus massacres. But for considerations soon to be examined, the solutions devised under the specter of these latter massacres were adopted only for Mount Lebanon. Thus, the Lebanese alone ultimately reaped the fruits of the horror provoked by the Damascene Vespers.
Yet, it is important when dealing with contemporary perceptions of the Lebanese and Syrian crisis to distinguish among the differing approaches and conclusions drawn in Europe by unofficial circles and by governments. If, very often, officials shared the general public outrage and its dismal views with regard to the ability of the Ottoman government to regenerate the Empire, their official stances were much more reserved and cautious. Edified by their former experience, and cognizant of the complexity of the issue, they realized that no simple solution existed to the Ottoman predicament. The essence of the problem lay in the fact that the fate of the Syrian provinces was closely linked to that of the Ottoman Empire as a whole. Any misstep could risk opening the whole Eastern Question, a prospect that all the European powers preferred to avoid.
These kinds of considerations constrained the action of the European governments, compelling them to avoid confrontations and seek compromises. Their basic determination to hold on to the principle of the integrity of the Ottoman Empire, the only and best guarantee against their own conflicting ambitions and aspirations and a potential European war, led them to water down initial proposals to restructure the whole Syrian province and to agree on a more limited and conciliatory objective. The 1861 Règlement for Mount Lebanon was the result of this general compromise.
In contrast, European unofficial circles were less sensitive to the petty constraints of international politics, which were quite often misunderstood and denounced by the press, especially so in France. French commentators and publicists who had extolled the bold and firm measures adopted by its government at the beginning of the crisis were eventually disappointed by their poor results. High expectations of a decisive and comprehensive solution for the Christians of Lebanon contrasted sharply with the semi-autonomous status stipulated by the Règlement of 1861, which was thus perceived as a French defeat and a joint Turkish—British victory. Several commentaries and pamphlets appeared condemning the dictates of the diplomats and their lack of discernment. In short, they were accused of having failed the Christians of the Levant.19
The differing approaches of the French official and unofficial circles to the crisis once more had immediate repercussions in Mount Lebanon, which were, in turn, further complicated by the fact that local French officials on the spot were themselves at variance with one another. Local parties discerned with difficulty these nuances and variations in French attitudes, which they often confused, thus generating many misunderstandings and disappointments. The following sections follow the impact in Mount Lebanon proper of official and unofficial French views and their interaction with those of the Lebanese themselves, focusing on three different but interlinked types of activities, which distinguished official French action: the working of the European Commission in Beirut, the action and impact of the French Expeditionary Force, and the policy adopted by the French government. Although all three were supposed to translate one same orientation, they differed in approach and conclusions.
THE WORKINGS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION
The European Commission began its work in Beirut on October 5, 1860.20 The five European commissioners,21 who had received similar instructions from their governments, were directed, first, to determine the causes and origins of the latest events in Syria, to ascertain the responsibility of the chiefs of the insurrection and of the Ottoman officials and bring the culprits to justice; second, to determine the extent of the losses of the Christian population and to devise the appropriate means to indemnify the victims; and, finally, to prevent the recurrence of such events, through whatever modifications deemed necessary to the organization of the Mountain.22 Furthermore, they were enjoined to devise a common final report, thus encouraging some conciliation and cooperation in their work.23 At the same time, they had to defend the contradictory views and policies of their governments and the interests of their local protégés, which limited flexibility in their delicate negotiations.
By
