Antislavery, Abolitionism, and Abolition in France from the End of the Eighteenth Century to the 1840s

Marcel Dorigny

Before getting to the heart of the matter, it is important to clarify the terminology: "antislavery" and "abolitionism" are not equivalent terms, even if there exists admittedly a continuity between the two. Strictly speaking, though one could not be abolitionist without being antislavery, there is a qualitative difference between one term and the other. Proponents of antislavery limited themselves, in a way, to a moral condemnation of slavery based on religious, ethical, and economic principles, but they did not envision a way out, nor the means by which a society founded on slavery might transform itself into one founded on free labor. On the other hand, abolitionism was a form of political engagement, in which was conceived a concrete means of abolition, and even the kind of society to be established once slavery had been eliminated.

The organization of a postslavery society became the main question for abolitionists, and all conflicts and disagreements arising in the subsequent period revolved around how to achieve this goal. I will therefore limit myself to distinguishing between antislavery, which laid the groundwork for the condemnation of a system, and abolitionism, which proceeded one step further by considering both abolition itself and its characteristics, as well as the means of transition from the age of enslaved labor to the age of free labor.

A second point of terminology must be addressed: what was an abolitionist with respect to a reformist? Nelly Schmidt published an important book on this theme, although centered almost exclusively on the nineteenth century. There was, however, a continuity between the eighteenth century and the nineteenth century in this regard: there were many colonial reformers during the Ancien Regime and in the first half of the nineteenth century, who for the most part adhered to a logic of maintaining slavery, and their actions and proposals were aimed rather at adapting slavery, not eliminating it. Most often though these reform projects faced considerable resistance from the supporters of the system, who almost always adopted an uncompromisingly conservative position. For them, the system of slavery formed a coherent whole, and any reform, even at the margins, would lead to its rapid destruction. On the contrary, abolitionists were concerned with the complete elimination of slavery and anticipated the future of the colonies without slaves.

There were certainly both "progressivist" abolitionists—they, in fact, were the majority—who envisioned abolition as a process, and "immediatist" abolitionists— long an isolated minority—who rejected the idea of a progressive exit from slavery and considered there existed no intermediary legal category between serfdom and freedom. Beyond their respective differences as to the rhythm of slavery's demise, all abolitionists shared a common project: according to them, a colonial society without slaves was not only possible, but desirable, and in fact the only way to both keep existing colonies and create new ones. A wide spectrum of perspectives was therefore represented within the large family of radicalist and gradualist abolitionists, including those who thought that abolition was unnecessary because slavery would disappear automatically as the result of preventive measures taken at its roots, imagining thus a natural extinction of slavery, without conflict, without crises or violence, preempting even the need to legislate.

I would argue, without passing judgment on their accuracy, that these more or less optimistic plans were all part of the abolitionist movement insofar as they all imagined the future of the colonies without slaves. This rejection of slavery as the only possible means of labor within the tropical colonies constituted a radical break from the aforementioned reformists, for whom there was an explicit and consubstantial relationship between the colonies and slavery, and who asserted that colonies were impossible without slaves, at least in the tropics. Between these two approaches lies a fundamental intellectual rift defined by a radical difference in anthropological conceptions.

In the eighteenth century, abolitionists were an isolated minority since conceiving of the future of the colonies without slaves was the privilege of a daring elite; the ideological dominance of slavery was the result of continuous propaganda on the part of colonizers and shipowners, who systematically depicted abolitionists as enemies of the colonies. This was the recurring leitmotif in libels directed at the abolitionist movement, from its very beginnings: the Société des Amis des Noirs (Society of the Friends of Blacks), in France, was constantly accused of being at the service of England in an attempt to destroy French colonial power. One recalls, for example, the title of a pamphlet published by colonizers and shipowners, publicly denouncing the members of the Constitutional Assembly who had voted in favor of the decision to grant political equality to the "colored freemen" of the colonies born to free parents: List of Delegates Who Voted for England against France in the Question to Determine Whether France Would or Would Not Sacrifice Its Colonies: Yes or No. May 12th, 1791.

The Origins of Antislavery

With these definitions in mind, a general sketch of the origins of antislavery and of abolitionism during the Enlightenment period and the French Revolution is helpful. Let us first recall the impossibility of limiting this discussion to a strict national frame, for the antislavery movement defined itself fundamentally as an international and essentially cosmopolitan movement. Since slavery was unrestricted by national borders, the fight against it implied coordinated action from all its opponents, and in all countries that were involved. Thus, from the very beginning, those who sought to oppose slavery had to transcend national borders. The antislavery movement was one of the first (if not the first) organizations to establish itself on an international scale.

What were the roots of antislavery that led more or less directly to abolitionism? Roughly speaking, there are two distinguishable origins of antislavery, one more present in England, the other in France. However, let us keep in mind that the two countries had a reciprocal influence over one another at this time. On the other hand, there existed an essentially Christian antislavery movement, inspired by what one might call an evangelical egalitarianism, grounded on the assertion in the book of Genesis that the origin of humanity lies in a primitive couple, Adam and Eve, from whom all humans are descended. Thus, because of its single origin, humanity as a whole shares a common root, an idea that from the outset precludes any hierarchy of human races, and therefore any form of exploitation of one race by another. This egalitarian and unitarian conception of the human species discredited the notion of "natural slavery" that was still common in the eighteenth century and that relied on a presupposed inequality between the different "branches" of the human species, as well as occasionally on the Curse of Ham, also a biblical reference, though through a dubious exegesis.

According to eighteenth-century proponents of antislavery, the supposed legitimacy of such arguments pales in contrast to the primordial sacred text that is Genesis, in which the single origin of humanity is explicitly proclaimed. This trend of evangelical egalitarianism was especially present in England and the United States. The first antislavery tendencies developed in these two countries within the dissident chapters of the Anglican Church. This religious origin would remain an important characteristic of the antislavery movement, and later of the abolitionist movement, until the nineteenth century, with numerous pastors taking on positions of leadership. The example of the Quakers is typical of this evangelical egalitarianism: having founded Pennsylvania, they forbade their members from owning slaves on its territory. While slavery had never been essential to the economy of this specific territory, since there were very few slaves there in the first place, the principle was nevertheless strongly asserted: one could not simultaneously be a Quaker and a slave owner.

The other origin of antislavery, which is not necessarily opposed to the preceding trend—even if, in all reality, these two rarely coincided—is what could be called an antislavery of natural right. This is the main origin of antislavery in France. Typical of the Enlightenment, the idea bases the equality of men on their equal nature, and some of the most prominent proponents of this idea were Diderot, Raynal, and Voltaire (though this last thinker rejected the biblical explanation of the origin of the world and instead adopted the idea of polygenism). One of the most radical theoreticians of the French antislavery movement, Condorcet, asserted what for him was essential, namely the natural equality of all human beings, men and women, Whites, Black, Indians, Chinese ...

The ideas put forth by these thinkers were not Christian in essence, but nevertheless resulted in the same conviction: the fundamental equality existent between all human beings of every "race," color, and physical appearance. This form of antislavery was founded upon the principle of natural equality between human beings: for its proponents, the developmental differences between human societies at a given time were not the result of some kind of natural inequality, but rather were the consequence of complex historical factors. These differences in the developmental stages of societies did not, for them, justify the right for the most "advanced" societies in the domains of science and "useful arts" to enslave the others. From this fundamental belief that human beings everywhere are the same resulted a theory of infinite perfectibility of the human spirit and consequently of the unlimited potential for progress of all human societies, provided that the more advanced did not dominate the others through either force or violence. Condorcet expressed this belief most explicitly in his last major work, the Tableau historique des progrès de l'esprit humain, that he completed just before his death late in the winter of 1794. There were thus two founding trends of antislavery in the eighteenth century, which at times coexisted, as evident in the work of the Catholic Abbé Grégoire—even though the Church of Rome had rejected and excommunicated him—who was also a proponent of the principle of natural right. Grégoire thus represented both a sort of synthesis of the two trends of antislavery in the eighteenth century and a continuity between generations, as he was fortunate enough to mostly outlive the dangers of the Revolution. At his death in 1831, the second generation was already in place, and its members could meet him, get to know him, and lay claim on the continuation of his work.

The emergence of antislavery thought in the eighteenth century was of historic significance, for it was the first time in human history that a philosophical, ethical, or religious idea founded itself upon a notion of humanity's essential unity in such a way as to condemn the very principle of slavery's existence. The practice of slavery, though existent in almost all human societies, had never been critiqued in such a way. Europe was thus the first to formulate a philosophical, religious, and economic denunciation of slavery at a time when at least its most powerful states practiced slavery on a previously unthinkable scale.