Dreyfus Affair

¶ … Dreyfus Affair Alfred Dreyfus was born in Alcace in 1959, a period of time tumultuous for both Germany and French. When Germany acquired the Alsace region, Alfred's father moved his family to Paris, feeling allegiance to that country. Alfred was commissioned as an artillery officer in the French Army in 1882 (Adler, 2002). While Dreyfus was growing up France went through tome dramatic changes. The French thrown was abolished in 1871 and the Third Republic formed. Religious leaders were afraid their power would diminish, and multiple factions lined up against each other.

Anti-Prussian sentiment was high because of a humiliating defeat in the Franco-Prussian war (Adler, 2002), and all these factors led to a huge wave of extreme nationalism. Those opposed to the new Republican government needed a target and found it in the Jews after the collapse of a major bank. The director of the bank named "Jewish capitol for the bank's collapse (Adler, 2002). Then in 1886 a book was published titled La France Juive ("Jewish France"), in which the author claimed to prove Jewish dominance over all aspects of French life.

This was quite a stretch as there were only 75,000 Jews in France at the time, but the book was quite popular and fed into growing anti-Semitism (Adler, 2002). It was in this atmosphere that a janitor in the German Embassy in Paris found a torn-up document in a wastebasket that turned out to be a list of documents that were supposed to be passed on to Germans. The scraps were found in the trashcan of Colonel Maximilian von Schwartzkoppen, German attache' (Cavendish, 1999).

The French army, heavily populated with Monarchists opposed to the Republican government, determined to find the traitor and thus discredit the politicians (Staff writers, 2004). Given the strong anti-Semitism mood in France, a Jewish military officer was an easy target. His handwriting bore a slight resemblance to the officer eventually proven to be the traitor, one Major Esterhazy (Editor, 1998). He was arrested, not allowed to have contact with anyone outside the prison, and finally pressured into a false confession (Adler, 2002).

He was tried by a French court-martial behind closed doors and convicted. When the judges commented that the evidence was thin, the prosecutor, Major Henry, said he had secret documents that couldn't be revealed. Those documents turned out later to have been forged by Henry (Adler, 2002). Because they were classified as secret, Dreyfus and his attorney could not examine them (Adler, 2002).

After his conviction he was marched through the streets, humiliated and sent to Devil's Island, a French Penal colony off the coast of South Africa, protesting his innocence all the time. However, the public generally felt just had been served, and people lost interest in the case (Staff writers, 2004). Remarkably, it was an anti-Semite who began to turn things around for him. Lieutenant Colonel Georges Picquart, while holding prejudiced views about Jews, looked at the evidence and realized Dreyfus was not guilty.

He determined that the traitorous officer was actually Major Walsin Esterhazy (Baziller, 1986), and that as long as people remained convinced that Dreyfus was the traitor, Esterhazy was still a national security risk. Further investigation revealed that Esterhazy was deep in debt (Staff writers, 2004), providing a motive Dreyfus had lacked. Picquart could not get authorities to act, but then Dreyfus's brother Mathieu came to the same conclusion and increased pressure to re-open the case.

However, the military could not bear to admit that they had made a mistake, possibly because of the politics involved in managing to embarrass the Republican government the first time. In 1998, in a court martial that lasted only minutes, Esterhazy was acquitted (Staff writers, 2004). Two days later Emile Zola, a prominent writer, published his letter "J'Accuse," in which he accused the judges of bending to the will of the army when thee acquitted Esterhazy (Staff writers, 2004).

Still determined to protect their reputation instead of promoting the truth, the military charged Zola with the very serious French crime of "slandering the military." (Editor, 1998) Zola was found guilty, and he was sentenced to a year in jail (Staff writers, 2004). He managed to escape to England and thus avoid going to jail, and continued his campaign from there to free Dreyfus (Editor, 1998).

As the efforts of the military cover-up became more and more obvious, intellectuals around the world spoke out for Zola, who had previously criticized the French press for their anti-Semitism (Editor, 1998). At this point the Dreyfus affair had become completely politicized with Royalists, military and nationalist factions all taking one stand, with Republicans, socialists and anti-clerical groups on the other side (Staff writers, 2004). Dreyfus' conviction was still a political issue and not one of justice gone wrong.

The issue actually became so heated that it led to duels (Cavendish, 1999), and harsh diatribes denouncing one side or the other continually erupted in the press. Meanwhile Dreyfus remained in solitary confinement on Devil's Island (Staff writers, 2004). The truth could not remain hidden forever, and eventually the real evidence in the case became well-known. It became public that Colonel Henry had forged much of the evidence against Dreyfus. He could not live with this revelation, and in August of 1898 committed suicide (Staff writers, 2004).

Major Walsin Esterhazy, did what Zola had done before him and left for England to avoid the consequences of his actions (Staff writers, 2004). The French papers began to express concerns about what had happened, and Dreyfus's case was sent to an appeals court. Fortunately for Dreyfus, a new Premier came to power in 1899, changing the political climate some. The appeals court ordered a new court-Martial for Dreyfus. He finally returned to France from Devil's Island in 1899 to stand trial on the charges again (Editor, 1998).

However, the military still could not publicly admit their error. He was found guilty once again, this time with "extenuating circumstances," and re-sentenced -- this time, to ten years.