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.
First of all, that was a very nicely written essay.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was baffling how this Freedom Principle could be put into effect by Louis XIV, but then almost disregarded by following governments.
I also agree with what you said about the lawyers, how a few had good intentions but most had selfish reasons for "helping" the slaves. It seems as if most weren't motivated morally at all, but were attempting to purify their country.
Your essay clearly shows the hypocrisy that existed in France during the eighteenth century in regards to the issue of slavery. The French government created laws in order to free slaves but then did not enforce these regulations. From your essay, you can tell that the French clearly struggled over the issue of slavery for a long time. It seems like the French did not want slaves in their own country but did not care that it was elsewhere, including its colonies. This argument clearly shows that the French were, for a large part, selfish in their motives for abolishing or at least fighting against slavery. The French did not want to be associated with slavery because they declared themselves a free nation in which all citizens were free. Slavery seemed to mock such claims. You also mention the role of lawyers in the freeing of slaves. I agree that lawyers played an extensive part in abolishing slavery and mostly did it for selfish reasons, like the rest of France. Although the lawyers did a good thing for slaves some, but not all, did it for the wrong reason. I do believe, however, that some of the French did oppose slavery for moral reasons, such as the Catholics. I enjoyed reading your essay; it made some very good points and was nicely written.
ReplyDelete