Synopsis of Bibliographic Review

            When I initially began to approach the topic of the Haitian Revolution, I had thought to examine it through the lens of the various nations that had an interest in the event. It quickly became apparent to me that the scholarship on this subject does not run in this manner. Most of the secondary sources that I have read approach the Haitian Revolution as a type of event (e.g. racial, economic, or political) and then present individual perspectives that reinforce the favored typology. I found it interesting that even primary source compilations can be found to favor this typological approach through careful selection of the materials presented (this is made possible by the enormous volume of official and personal correspondence that surrounds this event). I have therefore chosen my subjects for this synopsis accordingly. The earliest piece, The Black Jacobins by C.L.R. James, portrays the Haitian Revolution as being a social event that was inextricably linked to the French Revolution. The second piece, The Avengers of the New World by Laurent Dubois, sees the Haitian Revolution as being primarily a racial conflict that occurred as a reaction to the brutality and oppression that occurred in the colony. The third piece, You Are All Free by Jeremy Popkin, views the Haitian Revolution as a political event that was deeply intertwined with the geopolitical realpolotik of the times. Taken together, these works do not stand in conflict with one another but, rather, constitute the pieces of a puzzle that can work together  to form a complete picture.

            The Black Jacobins, by C.L.R. James was published in 1963.  As its title would suggest, this book presents the Haitian Revolution as a type of extension of the French Revolution. Indeed, in his introduction, James even draws a link between the revolutionary events in France and Haiti to the post colonial emancipation of Africa that was under way as the book was being published. There is even an appendix in my edition entitled From Toussaint L’Overture to Fidel Castro which, although rather dated at this point, is a wonderful representation of James’ linkages of revolutionary events. According to James, in San Domingue “The slaves worked the land and, like revolutionary peasants everywhere, they aimed at the extermination of their oppressors.” Although the idea of the slave as “revolutionary peasant” may be a somewhat incomplete concept in terms of the Haitian Revolution, James’ work still serves to create a valid perspective from which to view this event.

            Avengers of the New World, by Laurent Dubois, is a much more recent work, having been published in 2004. Dubois sees the Haitian Revolution as primarily a slave uprising that occurred as a result of the excessive cruelty of the white planter class. By choosing to approach the Haitian Revolution through the lens of slavery, Dubois weds himself to the idea that this was primarily a racial conflict. Indeed, he implies as much when states that “The insurgents of 1791 were enormously diverse – women and men, African-born and Creole, overseer and fieldworker, slaves on mountain plantations and sugar plantations – and carried with them many different motivations, hopes, and histories. Using violence against a violent system, they shattered the economy of one of the richest regions of the world.” Although Dubois’ vivid portrayal of racial conflict reshaping an entire society can thoroughly address the origins of the Haitian Revolution, we must turn to another lens entirely to address the emergence of a new nation that would occur 13 years after the initial slave revolt took place.

            You Are All Free, by Jeremy Popkin, is the most current of the three works, as it was published in 2010. Interestingly, Popkin departs from the Dubois model early on by dating the Haitian Revolution, not from the initial slave uprising, but from a political event – the decision by France to rescind the freedom that had been granted the colony’s slaves the previous year. Popkin envisions the Haitian Revolution as an event that influenced and was influenced by the international political machinations of the time. His main assertion is that the birth of Haiti would have been impossible, without the simmering tensions between the United States, Great Britian, and France. He even gives the United States credit for saving the nascent revolution during a critical point. By stating that “by continuing to trade with the French-held parts of Saint Domingue even after the destruction of Cap Francais and the emancipation of the slaves, [the] Americans helped Sonthonax and Polverel hold out long enough for Toussaint L’Overture to make up his mind to join them”, Popkin is drawing attention to the fact that this revolution could not have succeeded but for assistance from other nations, and that such assistance was a result of a confluence of political events taking place outside of the island.

            I feel that it is best to view these works as complementary to one another. Any event as complex and as lengthy as the Haitian Revolution cannot be thoroughly assessed through a single lens or a single type of experience. Although there are, doubtless, many more facets of the Haitian Revolution that these authors do not delve into, I feel that these three perspectives form a general picture of the main currents of scholarship in the contemporary dialogue surrounding the history of the Haitian Revolution.

Dubois, L. (2004). Avengers of the new world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

 

James, C.L.R. (1963). The black jacobins. New York: Random House.

Popkin, J. (2010). You are all free. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Short Essay 5

     Although Olaudah Equiano begins his narrative by explicitly stating that he is “an African” (p. 4), as one reads his story it becomes clear that, at least at the time of his authorship,  he is actually far more comfortable viewing himself as European. This backdrop is critical to unearthing Equiano’s understanding of the concept of freedom. Equiano’s narrative is essentially a classic tale of an individual’s journey of self-discovery and then self-realization. Equiano clearly believes that he had been destined or, rather, predestined for a meaningful life. His account is full of foreshadowing moments such as his naming or the existence of favorable animal omens (p.19). At age ten, Equiano was enslaved and soon thereafter came into contact with Europeans for the first time. This, it might be said, was the first step of his enlightenment. In a crucial passage from his text, Equiano states that “I not only felt at ease among these new countrymen, but relished their society and manners. I no longer looked upon them as spirits, but as men superior to us; I therefore had the stronger desire to resemble them, to imbibe their spirit and imitate their manners. I therefore embraced every occasion for improvement; and every new thing that I observed, I treasured up in my memory” (p. 62). The reader is struck by the lack of egalitarian sentiment in these words. This is the writing of self-made man, who believes that the true quality of a man is not inherent at birth, but must be obtained through persevering hardships, working diligently, and constantly seeking improvement. Indeed, this is the type of man who would see freedom not merely as the absence of slavery, but as the ability to exert one’s will on the world around him. Thus, for Olaudah Equiano, the concept of freedom seems to have extended far beyond the legal act of manumission and was inextricably linked to his concept of social equality in European society.

            This concept may have been rooted in Equiano’s skillful navigation of interpersonal relationships with the Europeans with whom he had contact. He was consistently able to win favor and respect by displaying his work ethic, mental acuity, and personal charm. He was able to leverage this social favor into a constant state of self betterment. It is through his interpersonal skills that he learned to read and write, was baptized into the church, and learned to be a sound business manager. He was also willing to appear subordinate when it suited the situation, a crucial skill for a man in his position. Tellingly, Equiano displayed this skill after his manumission by continuing to cultivate positive relationships with his former masters (p. 133). This may be an indication that he understood, at some level, that having legal freedom was not a substitute for having social capital. Therefore, throughout his life Olaudah Equiano continued to create an identity for himself that allowed him to be upwardly mobile in English society. He became educated, active in the Church, amassed wealth, married an Englishwomen, and then joined the abolitionist cause. In short, Olaudah Equiano became a man who could, to increasing degrees, exert his will on the world around him. This is not simply the story of a slave made good but, rather, this is the story of a slave who became an Englishman.

            What is interesting about Olaudah Equiano’s view of freedom is that it does not question the superiority of Europeans. Equiano, in the aforementioned passage, actually states as much. Although he presents Africa as a sort of idyllic Eden, he clearly sees Europe as superior, even to the point of asking the Church to send him back to convert the unenlightened Africans (p. 236). What makes Equiano’s viewpoint problematic is that the social equality that he sought could not be taken from the English but, rather, it must be conferred by them, which raises the question of how valid is a social equality that exists at the whim of another. Therefore, he found himself recognizing the superior position of the Europeans while concurrently attempting to obtain the same sort of superiority for himself. For example, upon his manumission, Equiano expresses his desire to present himself to his old master who had ill treated him (p. 137). Although such a desire was couched in affectionate terms, one cannot help but sense that there is an expectation of sly gratification on Equiano’s part. It seems that he may have had a need to prove that he was something more than a slave but, in order to prove this to himself, he first needed to prove it to his former English master. Thus, for Equiano, even his manumission reinforced the notion of English superiority.

            While Equiano sought freedom within the system, slaves in the New World were seeking freedom from the system. As is historically clear from the numerous slave uprisings in the North American Colonies, the Caribbean, and Iberian South America, the New World was the land of slave revolts, not slave assimilation. This may be due to the fact that the majority of the ugliness and brutality of chattel slavery was taking place in the New World, which would naturally result in a slave population that tried to abolish the existing order, as opposed to rising within it. It is interesting to note that the New World was also a place the Olaudah Equiano shunned whenever possible, preferring life on a ship or life in Europe, to life in the colonies. What would otherwise be fertile ground for a man looking to remake himself became a place that he sought to escape and leave behind. The constant fear of re-enslavement, the endemic racism, and the lack of an opportunity for social mobility all made the New World an undesirable place for Equiano. These are the same factors that produced a revolutionary mindset in the slaves that existed wholly within this sphere. The vast majority of slaves living the Black Atlantic sphere could in no way hope for the kind of freedom, social mobility, and equality that Olaudah Equiano strove for and, to a large degree, attained. For these slaves, the road to freedom lay in revolution not self-realization.

Short Essay Four

To our modern sensibilities, there seems to be little distinction between a moral opposition to the practice of slavery and a pragmatic opposition to the practice of slavery. Yet, this is a relatively recent development and one that modern civilizations can afford only now that slavery is no longer a necessary component to a nation’s economic well being. However, as one examines the Colonial period it is necessary to bear in mind that when the Atlantic colonies were the economic engines of the European powers, the wholesale abolition of slavery in the Atlantic sphere would have resulted in the economic collapse of nations whose generation of wealth was predicated upon the widespread use of slave labor. This economic necessity allowed for a wide spectrum of views regarding the place of slavery in the Atlantic and European worlds, and a modern historian would do well to avoid anachronistic comparisons between our common values and the common values of the Colonial period. Yet, this is not to suggest that there was an absence of social tension regarding the place of slavery in the nations of Europe, and one of the most interesting settings to study this social tension is colonial France.

According to Peabody (22), the national identity of France was so deeply intertwined with the notions of liberty and freedom that, to the French people, the concepts of being French and being free were virtually synonymous. Curiously enough, this national myth did not result in a system that was free of slavery. This may have been due to the fact that the widespread acceptance of the concept of France as the heartland of freedom did not correspond to the widespread acceptance of the concept that all races of men were fundamentally equal (Peabody 66). Thus, without irony, the French system attempted to draw a “spatial and legal distinction” between the French colonies, where slavery was an economic necessity, and the nation of France, which should remain free and unblemished by slavery (Peabody 14). It is within this context that French citizens, colonists, freedmen, and slaves operated and interacted both with one another and with the system as a whole. Although these interactions show a large number of French citizens who were willing to aid slaves found on French soil, these interactions also show that many French citizens did not do so out of humanitarian reasons or a fundamental belief in racial equality. The case of Catherine Morgan, when viewed as a microcosm, is a very telling example of the differing motivations that came into play during social conflicts regarding the existence of slavery on French soil.

According to Peabody (43) Catherine Morgan was a slave who had traveled from Saint Domingue to France with her master. After being sexually exploited and physically assaulted, she sought the assistance of a free woman of color who was a widow. Catherine was then placed under the protection of a convent and a lawyer was consulted. The lawyer, Terrien, did attempt to help, but there seems to be a cloud hanging over his exact motivations, and he did collect a considerable profit from the case. Catherine’s master, a planter named Morgan, did attempt to get her back, but to no avail. Although the French courts recognized that Catherine was a slave who was brought illegally to the mainland of France and that her master had mistreated her, the French courts did not grant Catherine her freedom. Instead, Catherine and her children were to be shipped back to the colony and sold to any, save Morgan, for the profit of the state (Peabody 47).

The varying motives of this story reflect the social tensions in France at the time. Catherine, a slave who presumably knew that she could be considered free upon setting foot on French soil, waited almost a year before attempting to gain her freedom. This strongly suggests a situational equality between the circumstances of a domestic slave and those free French citizens at the lowest rung of the social ladder. Indeed there seems to have been a debate within French society at the time over whether certain labor arraignments actually constituted a form of slavery (Peabody 28). Catherine only seems to have fled slavery after severe mistreatment, which could be interpreted as a reluctant acceptance of her role as a slave in the French system.

The motives of Catherine’s master, Morgan, appear to be straightforward and are only worth mentioning because of his own status in French society. Morgan, to whom the slave Catherine was a piece of valuable property as well as a source of carnal indulgence, was from the colonial planter class, and doubtless had no moral qualms about the practice of slavery. The colonial planter class did not view slavery as an abstract institution, whose merits should be debated in the salons of Paris. Rather, these individuals understood that slaves produced wealth, but had to be kept under control by violent and degrading methods. Additionally, Morgan’s actions after Catherine’s escape, such as pursuing a murderous vendetta with Terrien and spurning the proceedings of the French courts, make it clear that he was an outsider in terms of French society (Peabody 44). This is, perhaps, also indicative of the aforementioned “spatial and legal distinction” between France and her colonies.

In contrast to Morgan, the lawyer Terrien seems to have been the consummate insider in terms of French society. He seems to have been successful, educated, respected, and well connected as evidenced by the personal nature of the communication that occurred between him and the authorities investigating the case (Peabody 42). Although Terrien was willing to help Catherine, there seems to have been a financial incentive to do so, and one cannot help but question the abolitionist credentials of a man whose view of helping an escaped slave involves purchasing her himself, a dubious method of manumission that ultimately serves to reinforce the legitimacy of chattel slavery (Peabody 43). That the women involved with this case were willing to acquiesce to this sale also serves to illuminate their motives as well.

The women who helped shelter Catherine, two freed women of color and the nuns at the convent, were willing to allow Catherine to be sold as an initial route to her freedom. That this plan was attempted before they appealed to the French authorities is quite bizarre when considered from the perspective of gaining freedom from slavery. However, when one considers this course of action in terms of domestic violence it becomes completely rational. A slave does not gain freedom by being sold to another master (despite any promises of goodwill and manumission), but a battered woman can gain protection by being sheltered by an influential and powerful man. Thus, it could be argued that for the freed women of color and the nuns at the convent, this was not so much about slavery as it was about sheltering a fellow woman from abuse and sexual exploitation. This view is further reinforced by their lack of intervention when Catherine and her children are to be shipped back to the colony.

Finally, this case brings to light the motives of the state. In the proceedings regarding Catherine Morgan, the legitimacy of slavery is never questioned. Only the status of Catherine as slave or free is ever questioned, and when she is determined to still be a slave under the law, she must be immediately removed from French soil (Peabody 47). Thus we see the strange dichotomy that existed in France during this period. It seems that because France was the homeland of liberty, slavery could not ever exist on French soil. However, because France needed the economic spoils of slavery, it had to be permitted in the French colonies. Perhaps, this serves to explain the extreme need of French society to differentiate itself from colonial society as well.

When one questions the motives of the French people who helped slaves during this period, it is impossible to take into account every conceivable rationale for acting. Despite this fact, some general trends can be observed. First, the notion of racial equality as we envision it today was not widespread. Secondly, the legitimacy of slavery as an institution was not seriously questioned. Finally, there was a pervading sense of French Exceptionalism at the heart of most of the actions of the state. This resulted in a system that exploited slave labor in the colonies and denied the existence of slavery at home. Thus, it might be said that to the citizens of the metrople, slavery was not evil, it just was not French.