Essay 4 - Newhard

The age of Enlightenment, as the eighteenth century is often called, was a time of rising optimism. Educated Europeans envisioned themselves as the most civilized people in history. Reason, they optimistically predicted, would dispel the mists of human ignorance, superstition, and prejudice. Although enlightenment thinkers envisioned a human race filled with progressive ideas and which embraced principles of reason, many factors served as obstacles to the realization of the vision. Ignorance, for example, the foundation of bias and unwitting prejudice, clouded the perceptions and judgments of some of the most educated men of this time. In human terms, the most glaring evidence of the failure of the Enlightenment was the perpetuation of the slave trade, which despite much condemnation, flourished until the mid nineteenth century.
African children were often kidnapped by unscrupulous natives who profited handsomely by selling their captives to white slave traders. The fate of the African slave who survived the perilous “Middle Passage” was a life of unspeakable suffering. A first-hand account of this inhumane system is central to the autobiographical narrative of Olaudah Equiano who was born in the West African Kingdom of Benin and kidnapped and enslaved at the age of eleven. Both as a slave and after his release from slavery in 1766, Equiano traveled widely. For Olaudah Equiano, the concept of freedom had many definitions. While Olaudah was a child, being transported from ship to ship and master to master, his understanding of freedom came from the memories of his childhood. Soon, Olaudah began to understand the way of the Western world and his concept of freedom changed; he now saw freedom as being incorporated into Western culture. Olaudah eventually purchased his “freedom” from his master in 1766 but he did not feel completely liberated. In order for Equiano and other Africans to be completely “free” they desired to be accepted by whites by conforming to white society. In order to achieve this concept of freedom, Olaudah and other Africans believed that education and Christianity were the keys.
Unfortunately, the material benefit of slavery outweighed the moral indecency to many of the English in the eighteenth century. Although many English citizens believed the treatment of the African slaves to be unnecessary and the Christian church convinced the courts to abolish slavery, African men and women were never equal to those of white English society. The planters particularly, were against the abolishment of slavery and the missionary action to teach the slaves about Christianity. They believed that the African slaves were not intelligent enough to comprehend Christian beliefs and that they did not have the intelligence to comprehend their religion. The planters also feared that if the slaves were taught about Christianity, they would see themselves as equals to the planters and other Christian believers. On the other side of the argument, those who wanted to teach Christianity to the slaves believed that if the slaves were taught about Christianity, they would become more obedient and better workers for the planters. Either way both sides of the argument were against the freedom and equality of the Africans.

Contrary to the “freedom principle”, by the mid eighteenth century thousands of Africans had been forced to migrate to France as slaves. The idea that France had no slaves is based upon this "freedom principle" in which all citizens of France and any person who set foot on French soil was automatically deemed free. The fact that France had many colonies that employed the institution of slavery proves the hypocrisy of this principle and shows the labyrinth of resistance to change by the French government that stifled attempts at reform. In addition, this principle was the basis for the fight against slavery in France. There are two laws that show the hypocritical nature of the government in regards to the freedom of slaves, the Code Noir and the Declaration of December.
The Code Noir sought to regulate slaves both in colonies and those traveling with masters to France. The code required baptism of slaves in an effort to police the flow of slaves brought into France. The hypocrisy of this code lies in the fact that it did not conform to the common law of the “freedom principle” which stated that slaves could be freed once they landed in the ports of France. The reason for this hypocrisy was the idea that freeing a slave was essentially property loss. The Edict of October 1716 was created in order to fix this problem of property loss by allowing masters to bring slaves to France without giving them the ability of gaining their freedom. The Edict of October 1716 was not registered in the Parliament of Paris or the Admiralty Court of France which for all intents and purposes made it invalid. The Admiralty Court also gave slaves the ability to bring suit against owners which caused an increase in the number of lawsuits brought against slave owners and therefore another problem which needed to be resolved. Therefore, The Declaration of December was established which sought to prevent slaves from petitioning for freedom and attempted to limit the amount of slaves entering France.
The motives behind those who attempted to help free the slaves were based on both principles and personal reasons. Some lawyers were sympathetic to the atrocity of enslavement and truly wanted to provide slaves with their natural right of freedom. Other lawyers were motivated by the benefits which came with taking these cases such as money and furthering their own careers. The various laws that attempted to regulate the status and freedom of slaves in France demonstrate the intent of those making the laws. The law makers who attempted to help free Africans were not intending to free all slaves nor were they condemning the institution of slavery, instead they were attempting to regulate the slaves which were in France as well as attempting to prevent the migration of more slaves into France.

HST 498 - Essay 2

Two factions confronted each other in British parliament during the early eighteenth century; the Whigs and the Tories. They were the only political parties in Britain until the mid 19th century and their opposite beliefs helped to develop the idea of a left and right wings of politics. The Whigs stood for political and economic liberalism, a strong parliament, and religious tolerance, the Tories defended the rights of the Anglican Church and crown. After the Industrial revolution, the emerging middle class elicited reactionary policies from the aristocratic Tories who dominated the parliament. The basic problem in the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century was the partition of power. The old aristocratic members of parliament were adamant in refusing to yield its control over to the state. Some liberal Tories however, felt that the public protests of injustice had validity and responded by passing legislation reforming laws, especially in the debate of anti- slavery. The early abolitionist movement dates from the late eighteenth century and continued into the early nineteenth century. The movement included campaigners from all member of society; women, black activists, working men, church leaders, and members of parliament from both parties. All of those involved in the movement to abolish slavery had their reasons for their support of the faction and their own role in finally abolishing slavery in Britain.
For the most part, the early opponents focused on the immorality of the slave trade. Their beliefs stemmed from Enlightenment thinkers who demanded a review of the methods of government on the basis of reason and an idea of equality of all mankind. The main groups involved in these ideologies were women, Quakers, and slaves. These groups brought petitions to the parliament, staged protests and boycotts, and were extremely successful in gaining support for their cause. Their greatest alliances came from members of parliament who were able to bring the issue of the morality of the slave trade to the courts. The members of these groups believed in a system of equality and saw the slave trade and slavery as evil and unchristian. Their uprisings caused members of parliament to look at the system of slavery and reevaluate it. The second movement of anti-slavery came from an economic standpoint. The politicians, merchants, and economists began to argue that the slave trade was too costly and the economic benefit no longer existed. Therefore, if the cost outweighed the benefit the slave system was no longer worth the effort.
In either case, whether the cause for the abolishment of slavery was humanitarian or economic, the fact remains that people from all parts of society, men and women, whites and blacks, Whigs and Tories, came together to destroy a system that was cruel and unnecessary;

The “Black Atlantic” is a term which refers to the trans-Atlantic slave trade of the eighteenth century. According to Philip D. Curtain, it is estimated that 9,566,000 Africans were forced from their homeland to the western continents of Europe, North America, and South America. The journey itself was harsh and it is estimated that twenty percent lost their lives to the ocean. In addition, numerous amounts of Africans died once arriving to their new “home” from disease and harsh living conditions. Approaching the term from these facts alone confirm the accuracy of the term and the nature of it. This definition alone, though, does not offer an insight to the influence the “Black Atlantic” had on Africans. To understand the influence the “Black Atlantic” had on those involved three “populations” need to be examined; free Africans and African sailors, enslaved Africans, and Africans left behind.
According to Gretchen Holbrook Gerzina, the Atlantic ocean became a “symbol of movement” (Gerzina 42) for Africans. To many Africans, the Atlantic became a symbol of freedom of which they did not have in their homeland. This journey and the foreign lands, in which it took them to, provided them with a new African identity. Gerzina used the personal writings of Olaudah Equiano and travel journals of African sailors to explain the influence the “Black Atlantic” had on them. These journals and writings come from Africans which had a freedom that many other Africans who were part of the trade did not have. They defined a particular population which was divided from the majority of Africans who were taken and enslaved on plantations or as servants. A majority of those who were enslaved on plantations were not given the freedom of mobility. (Gerzina 45) For the Africans who were enslaved the Atlantic held within it a different meaning. It was the force in which stole their freedom and imprisoned them from the outside world. They were stolen from their home, separated from their families, and forced to work under cruel conditions. The final population influenced by the “Black Atlantic” were the family members and members of African society that remained in Africa. According to Joseph E. Inikori, “the Atlantic slave trade was a factor in the historical process that produced the current economic underdevelopment in tropical Africa” (Inikori 37) The effect of having such a large portion of the working population taken from Africa had long term effects on the economical development of Africa. The influence of the “Black Atlantic” was best explained by Gerzina when she wrote, “If the ocean was the site of disaporic travel and therefore symbolic of danger, displacement, and death, it also represented self-determination and the route to independence.” (Gerzina 43)