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.