Essay 4

Short Essay 4

The peculiarities surrounding the application of the Freedom Principal in 18^th century France beg the question of the true nature of individuals and society in their attempts to liberate slaves that found themselves on the French mainland. Sue Peabody’s “There Are No Slaves in France: The Political Culture of Race and Slavery in the Ancien Régime” outline various judicial cases and legislation in place throughout the century regarding the nature of slavery in mainland France, as well as cites individual cases of the courts and the struggle for a definite answer among magistrates and legislatures. The writing serves as a fine documentary of key incidents regarding slavery in the 18^th century, but leaves one to formulate their own postulation towards the nature of the actions of individuals in this era.

Outlined by two very important pieces of legislation which were never put into place,  Edict of October 1716 and Declaration of December 15, 1738, all slaves in France must be in country for the purpose of religious education or to learn a trade.  (Peabody, 1996) Were any slaves in country for other reasons, popularly as servants to their masters, they were to be manumitted from slavery upon filing for their freedom with the courts. The early sentiment towards the nature of slavery in France coinciding with France’s acceptance of colonial slavery for economic gain leave the impression that the existence of slavery within the borders of France was only acceptable under the circumstance that a slave was becoming a more refined individual through religious endeavors or by honing their professional skills. Were a slave in France, either unregistered or not involved in proper educational endeavors, they were to be freed from their bonds. The mentality behind this doctrine leaves a strong impression that France understood the economical importance of colonial slavery and was unwilling to depart from the practice, but would not allow bondage in their homeland unless it was for the betterment of the individual and society. One can derive that the French sentiment towards slavery at home was from the stance of humanitarianism and progression of the French culture.

Individually there were three reasons for one to represent a slave in the courts. Generally speaking one would represent a slave for personal economic gain and payment, for practice and experience in the courts or from a humanitarian perspective. (Peabody, 1996) In many cases more than one mode was at play. This simple situation is an indicator of the general feeling towards slaves in France from my interpretation. While some represented slaves pro-bono and strictly under the Freedom Principal, others did so because it posed the opportunity for lavish and continual reward in payment.

France itself suffered from similar complexities and the occurrences of the late 18^th century highlight the duality in the nature of France. Registration of slaves evolved into registration for Negroes and mulattos. (Peabody, 1996) Poncet de la Grave lobbied for decades to have interracial marriage and child bearing become illegal, and eventually in 1782 saw his wish granted. Racial purity overshadowed freedom as freed slaves were commanded to leave France, slave owners were demanded to transport their property to the colonies and slaves in passage with their owner were forced into prisons while their owner conducted business. It is here that the motivation of those behind freedom for all can be questioned. Was freedom granted or fought for to create a society of equality or was it fought for to rid France of economic ties with Blacks and rid their country of a multiethnic population?

The duality of arguments against slavery in France shifted focus from the oppression of slavery to oppressing the black population. As with the motives of those who represented slaves for their freedom, there seemed to be not one, but a complex web of motives and reasons involved in the handling of slavery in France during the 18^th century. Some involved surely took action based upon their humanitarian ideals of the Freedom Principal while others perhaps masked their goal of financial gain behind a veil of those principals. France as a nation seemed less interested in any humanitarian method of thinking and acted in ways to ensure economic growth abroad while keeping the home front civil.

 “There Are No Slaves in France” excellently outlined the duality of the nature of man and posed the question of “Why?” Why did some staunchly oppose slavery, while others staunchly opposed blacks in France? It is my conjecture that the nature of France and those individuals that took part in the issue of Slavery in the 18^th century acted for personal reasons. Rarely does one act purely on the premise of an abstract, although their actions may embody the principals of that abstract. France acted in a way to keep the economy overseas strong and to maintain balance at home. Individuals acted in various ways dependant on their personal ethics. Although bound in overarching abstract ideals, this text indicates to me that actions taken in most cases were done so for the personal gain, or societal gain deemed best, of the individual.