Of course he got chosen to become First Consul... everyone who didn't want him got arrested or detained.
That is grossly inaccurate. Can you support that statement with credible source material?
One must be overstretched if it becomes necessary to bring up that travesty of justice, and at the same suggest I left it out, rather than actually paying attention and noticing that I was speaking of the succession crisis following the Glroious Revolution of 1688, not the Civil wars of 1642-57 or The Restoration of 1666.
Why is that 'overstretching'? You went back to the Stuarts and William and Mary. Seems they are all relevant since you brought it up in the first place.
Yes, to the issue of the period, not now, as you inferred originally. There are legal niceties, which you continue to use for one and not the other. If d'Enghien's execution was just, so was Ney's.
I disagree as too many authors, and that includes people on the various Napoleonic forums, still use the 'Corsican Ogre theory' to denigrate both Napoleon and his achievements.
D'Enghien served and plotted against France; Ney did not. That is a very large difference and equating the two is an insult to every victim of the Bourbon's White Terror after Waterloo. And it contrasts sharply with Napoleon's actions after his return from Elba.