answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

In the mid 19th Century Louis-Napoleon, also known as Napoleon the Third (serving as France's President at the time) held a plebiscite in France to decide the question of whether or not he should become Emperor. The response was overwhelmingly in favor of an Empire, and the Second French Empire was born.

User Avatar

Wiki User

13y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

10y ago

Louis Napoleon.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

11y ago

Louis Napoleon

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: What leader used plebiscite to make himself emperor?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Related questions

What is the difference between a defense minister and an emperor?

A Defense Minister, as with ALL staff working for the Emperor, are advisers to the Emperor. The Emperor (as with Presidents, Kings, Dictators, Chairmen, etc.) will make the final decisions...but a "smart" leader surrounds himself with "wise men."


When did Napoleon make himself Emperor?

In May of 1804.


Make a sentence with the word plebiscite?

1. A direct vote in which the entire electorate is invited to accept or refuse a proposal: The new constitution was ratified in a plebiscite. 2. A vote in which a population exercises the right of national self-determination.


Did the emperor make the decisions at ancient roman trails?

An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.An emperor rarely made decisions at Roman trials, or even attended them, and then only if it were a trial of personal importance to the emperor himself. The Romans had a judicial system in place and they used it. However if an emperor wanted a trial to turn out a certain way, he would make his wishes known and perhaps "influence" the decision.


Who crowned Napoleon to make him emperor?

The great reformations in administration and judiciary and the normalization of relations between State and Church that he was able to accomplish in less than two years led him to be acclaimed Emperor of French by the Senate, on May, 18, 1804. A national referendum confirmed his accession to the throne with 3,572,329 votes against 2,579.


What is meant by plebiscite?

A plebiscite refers to a type of referendum. In it, the voters of a given jurisdiction place their votes on some proposal, usually for motion in the legislative body of that region. Unlike a normal referendum, however, a plebiscite is often non-binding on the legislature - that is, regardless of the vote, the legislature doesn't have to follow its results. This means that a plebiscite is usually used to gauge public support for a proposition.


In the Byzantine Empire how were officials chosen?

All appointments, both secular and religious, came either directly or indirectly from the emperor. Either the emperor made the appointment himself or he appointed the person who had the authority to make it.


If you were a French voter in 1803 how would you have voted on the plebiscite to make napoleons emperor?

If I was A French soldier in 1803 I would have voted no to make Napoleon emperor. I would have voted no because, although some of Napoleons laws or rights were good, at different times he changed them. He made rights and laws that benefited the people and others didn't benefit different people so much. Even though Napoleon was a very great general, I would not count on him to make fair laws and rights for all the people.


If you were a French voter in 1803 how would you have voted on the plebiscite to make Napoleon Emperor?

If I was A French soldier in 1803 I would have voted no to make Napoleon emperor. I would have voted no because, although some of Napoleons laws or rights were good, at different times he changed them. He made rights and laws that benefited the people and others didn't benefit different people so much. Even though Napoleon was a very great general, I would not count on him to make fair laws and rights for all the people.


What was the role of an Aztecs Emperor?

the aztec gods role was to lead in religion make decisions that would satisfy himself and the people and lead in war and tactics.


Why is eddy the leader of the eds?

Eddy's street smart, cheeky and willing to do just about anything to make enough money to buy jawbreakers for himself and the others and is therefore the self proclaimed leader of the Eds.


How and why did Augustus make the people think Rome was still a republic?

Augustus made the people think Rome was still a republic by not publicly declaring himself emperor, keeping the Senate in the legal system (although tis power was only symbolic), and not giving himself a huge palace. He did all this because he knew the public would not be happy if he was the emperor. Long ago, the Romans had sworn that they would never have another king after the bad rule of Tarquin. The Romans would have probably rebelled if he had declared himself emperor, and he also didn't want to be murdered like his great uncle, Julius Caesar. By not declaring himself emperor, he could have all the power, and not be as afraid of revolt or assassination.