France had long been associated with freedom. Obviously, slaveholders were less likely to support abolition, although some actually did petition to grant freedom to their own slaves. There were different reasons why the French sought to free slaves who had been brought into their country. For most average non-slaveholding citizens, it was abstract; but for others, and especially those in government or law positions, the motivation was likely based on more personal reasons.
While slavery was wide-spread in the French colonies, it was never formally introduced into France as it had been in America and Great Britain. For that reason, slavery never gained the same popularity and acceptance in France as it did in other nations. Most of the French who supported abolition were average citizens who acted on moral reasons. Christianity, “which held that man was created in God’s image and could not be treated as a beast under the domination of other men” (Peabody 21) , was a huge motivator for people during the 17th and 18th centuries.
According to Peabody, lawyers who took on cases for freedom did so for three reasons – remuneration, experience, and sympathy (Peabody 103). They knew that it was relatively easy to win such cases, and that they would probably be compensated for their efforts if they sought a monetary settlement between the owner and the slave. These lawyers were not necessarily motivated entirely by selfish means, there were those whose moral obligations led them to take on such cases.
Some ci tizens only wanted to free the slaves in France in order to expel them from the country. Poncet de la Grave literally was afraid that slaves would contaminate the white population, linking blacks to venereal disease (Peabody 124). He also sought to ban interracial marriages and succeeded in April 1778, although the law was not strictly enforced (Peabody 129).
French laws concerning slavery were not very descriptive and were full of loopholes. Government officials were especially likely to rule in favor of the slave because there were no laws concerning slavery officially recognized in the courts. Many lawyers pointed out that legislation such as the Edict of October 1716, which allowed colonists to bring their slaves to France without fear of losing them, had never been formally recognized and were thus invalied. An earlier decree from King Louis XIV was also frequently cited. The Freedom Principle (Peabody 14) held that slaves were automatically free upon setting foot in France.
Overall, because most French citizens had not been exposed to the same level and degree as in other nations, they were less likely to be so accepting of the institution of slavery. As it was in France, religion was an important factor in the abolition movement. A government that was not very tolerant of slavery further stopped its spread.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I also wrote about how the abolition movement in France was motivated by personal reasons. The lawyers of slaves did not represent a majority of the population. I wrote about the lawyers too, but now I do not feel that they had that much of an impact.
ReplyDeleteThe people of France may have been unable to cope with such a strange institution because of their religious values. Did you ever consider that people may have used the issue of slavery to weaken the power of the crown.
Your essay was well written and the examples you used were good. You used many points that I did not even consider.