Three arguments from white colons against granting people of colour the rights of active citizenship
Although the Club des Amis des Noirs wanted the abolition of slavery, the question that was debated in the National Assembly in 1791 was whether free people of colour should be granted active citizenship.
In 1791 white colons proposed to the National Assembly that a distinction should be established in the colonies between free people of colour and white people, introducing several classes drawn in accordance to degree of black ancestry, which was assumed to be correlated with appearance of whiteness.
An edict of 1685 granted any person who had been freed from slavery the same rights as those subjects who had never been slaves in the first place. Therefore, to introduce a distinction in 1791 would be to go back on this edict.
Free people of colour were people born of a free mother and father, and had at least one black ancestor.
Active citizenship meant the right to vote. The proposed distinction would have given free people of colour civil rights, but not political ones.
The arguments presented by white colons against granted free people of colour full rights of citizenship were of course appalling, both in their logic and their content.
Here are a few examples:
1) From:Motifs de la motion faite a l’Assemblée nationale le 4 mars 1791, par M. Arthur-Dillon, Depute de la Martinique.
Arthur-Dillon (1750-1794) was an English born aristocrat who inherited leadership of French regiment. Fought for American and French revolutions. Having sailed to Caribbean he met and married Louise de Girardin de Montgerald, Comtesse de la Touche. The couple had six children. Arthur-Dillon eventually came back to Paris as depute of Martinique.
In a speech for the National Assembly he writes about the dangers of the opinions of the Club des Amis des Noirs.
“They have no knowledge of the place and want to destroy at once political ties that only time and a long period of calm could weaken. Allowing men of colour to be represented at the Assembly would result in an immediate insurrection of the colonies against France.”
This argument: ‘you don’t know what it’s like there’ was one most commonly used by white colons.
2) From: Essai sur l’execution du decret du 15 mai 1791, concernant les gens de couleur par un habitant planteur de l’Amerique.
The anonymous planter argues that the decree that PoC born of free mothers and fathers should enjoy civil and political rights “will bring about the subversion of the colonies because the prejudices which keep slaves in bondage will be certainly destroyed by this act as politically flawed as it is contrary to the principles of humanity properly understood.”
He goes on to explain:
“The prejudices of slaves are precious; we must preserve them carefully. We can even say that each time we touch them, we will accelerate the subversion of the colonies in proportion to the gravity of the attempt against them”.
“They believe themselves to be bound to servitude because they are black and because they came, or their parents did from a foreign land where slavery exists. Thinking of themselves as men, as it were, or a different species, they are become familiar with the superiority of the white, in whom they see benefactors who free slaves and better the lives of those who are not white. Last, their state, made sweeter by habit, is only bitter for a few markedly bad individuals”.
He also notes, more sensibly, perhaps, if only because this is an argument that can be engaged with:
“There is nothing as dangerous as an excessive population of free men in a country where only slaves cultivate the earth, and which is fed mostly form outside, and whose near totality of production is not edible.”
This argument was often cited, not only by colons, but by the abolitionists who recognized that this was an economic consideration worth taking into account. Olympe de Gouges responded that freed slaves would be more willing to cultivate the earth once they had a stake in it.
3) From: Réponse d’un ami des Noirs a la lettre de M.***, habitant de Saint Domingue. Paris, 16 Novembre 1791.
The author blames revolts in Saint Domingue (Haiti) on the Club des Amis des Noirs, and specific members he refers to only by their initial. He claims that the true friends of black people are ‘all men who are just and humane, all planters who work to sweeten, through their goodness, the necessary dependence of the laborious and faithful negro, and only punish the guilty negro regretfully.’
He goes on to make a most counter-revolutionary analogy:
"It is possible to love the Blacks like the French love the people, who, because they have more passions than lights, think they serve the cause of liberty and equality when it only defiles itself with crime and precipitates its fall into an abyss of misery, and is nothing but the instrument of the fanatics and the factions.”
The view that black people are not to be seen as human in the same way as white people are was actually shared by the National Assembly in 1791, who granted the colons that black people were like children, in a state of prolonged minority, and that the state ought to act towards them as a parent, making decisions on their behalf. (Projet d’instruction pour les colonies relativement aux Decrets des 12 et 15 )
This is where I live blog about my new book project, an intellectual biography of three French Revolutionary women philosophers.
"Kama ilivyoelezwa hapo juu, ""Watu wa rangi"" walikuwa wakipinga haki ya raia wa rangi, na ""Club des Amis des Noirs"" ilitaka kuondolewa kwa utumwa, lakini swali lililozungumziwa katika Bunge la Taifa mnamo 1791 lilikuwa kama watu wa rangi waliopatikana huru walipaswa kupewa uraia wa kazi." Mwaka 1791 wakoloni weupe walipendekeza kwa Bunge la Taifa kwamba tofauti ianzishwe katika makoloni kati ya watu huru wa rangi na watu weupe, kuanzisha madarasa kadhaa yaliyochorwa kulingana na kiwango cha ukoo mweusi, ambayo ilidhaniwa kuhusiana na kuonekana kwa weupe. Sheria ya mwaka 1685 iliwapa watu waliowekwa huru haki sawa na zile za watu ambao hawakuwa watumwa. Kwa hiyo, kuanzisha tofauti katika 1791 ingekuwa kurudi nyuma juu ya amri hii. Watu huru wa rangi walikuwa watu waliozaliwa na mama na baba huru, na walikuwa na angalau babu mmoja mweusi. Uraia wa kazi ulimaanisha haki ya kupiga kura. Tofauti iliyopendekezwa ingekuwa imewapa watu huru wa rangi haki za kiraia, lakini si za kisiasa. """Hakika hoja zilizotolewa na wakoloni weupe dhidi ya kupewa watu huru wenye rangi haki kamili za uraia zilikuwa za kutisha, kwa mantiki yao na kwa yaliyomo." "Mfano wa ""Motifs de la motion faite à l'Assemblée nationale le 4 mars 1791"" ni M. Arthur-Dillon, Mjumbe wa Martinique." Arthur Dillon (1750-1794) alikuwa mwanajeshi wa Uingereza aliyezaliwa Uingereza ambaye alirithi uongozi wa kikosi cha Ufaransa. Alipigana kwa ajili ya mapinduzi ya Marekani na Ufaransa. Baada ya kusafiri kwa meli hadi Karibea alikutana na kumwoa Louise de Girardin de Montgerald, Comtesse de la Touche. Wenzi hao walikuwa na watoto sita. Mwishowe Arthur-Dillon alirudi Paris akiwa mjumbe wa Martinique. Katika hotuba kwa Bunge la Taifa anaandika juu ya hatari za maoni ya Klabu ya Marafiki wa Weusi. <unk>Hawajui mahali hapo na wanataka kuharibu mara moja uhusiano wa kisiasa ambao ni muda tu na kipindi kirefu cha utulivu kinachoweza kudhoofisha. "Kuruhusu watu wenye rangi kuwa na uwakilishi katika Bunge kungesababisha uasi wa mara moja wa makoloni dhidi ya Ufaransa. ""Hii hoja: ""Hamjui ni nini kama kuna"" ilikuwa moja ya kawaida kutumika na colonizers nyeupe." "Kutoka: ""Essai sur l'exécution du décret du 15 mai 1791: concernant les gens de couleur par un habitant planteur de l'Amérique"" (Kuchunguza juu ya utekelezaji wa amri ya 15 Mei 1791) " "Mwandishi huyo anaeleza kuwa amri ya kuwa watoto waliozaliwa na mama na baba huru wanapaswa kufurahia haki za kiraia na kisiasa ""itawaleta wakoloni kwa sababu ubaguzi ambao unawaweka watumwa katika utumwa hakika utaharibiwa na kitendo hiki kama cha kisiasa na kinyume na kanuni za ubinadamu zilizoeleweka vizuri.""" Tunaweza hata kusema kwamba kila wakati tunapowagusa, tutaharakisha uharibifu wa makoloni kwa usawa na uzito wa jaribio dhidi yao. <unk>Wanaamini kuwa wamefungwa katika utumwa kwa sababu wao ni weusi na kwa sababu wao walikuja, au wazazi wao walifanya kutoka nchi ya kigeni ambapo utumwa upo. Kwa kuwa wanajiona kuwa watu au spishi tofauti, wanafahamu ubora wa wazungu, ambao wanawaona kuwa wafadhili wanaowatoa watumwa huru na kuboresha maisha ya wale ambao si wazungu. Mwishowe, hali yao, iliyofanywa kuwa tamu zaidi na zoea, ni chungu tu kwa watu wachache wabaya sana. "Hakuna kitu hatari kama idadi kubwa ya watu huru katika nchi ambapo watumwa tu kulima ardhi, na ambayo ni kulishwa hasa fomu nje, na ambao karibu jumla ya uzalishaji si edible. hoja hii mara nyingi alitaja, si tu na wakoloni, lakini na abolitionists ambao walitambua kwamba hii ilikuwa kuzingatia kiuchumi thamani ya kuzingatia. """ Olympe de Gouges alijibu kwamba watumwa waliowekwa huru wangekuwa tayari zaidi kulima ardhi mara tu walipoipata. 3) Kutoka: Reponse d'un ami des Noirs a la lettre de M.***, mkazi wa Saint Domingue. Paris, 16 Novemba 1791. Mwandishi anawalaumu mapinduzi huko Saint Domingue (Haiti) kwenye Klabu ya Marafiki wa Weusi, na wanachama maalum anawataja tu kwa jina lao la kwanza. "Mtu yeyote ambaye ni rafiki wa kweli wa watu weusi ni mtu wa haki na wa kibinadamu, mkulima ambaye hufanya kazi ya kuondoa, kwa wema wake, utegemezi wa lazima wa Negro wa kazi na waaminifu, na tu kuwaadhibu Negro wa hatia kwa majuto. ""Ni uwezekano wa kuwapenda weusi kama Wafaransa wanavyowapenda watu, ambao, kwa sababu wana shauku zaidi kuliko mwanga, wanafikiri wanatumikia sababu ya uhuru na usawa wakati inazidi tu kujipunguza na uhalifu na kuharakisha kuanguka kwake katika abyss ya huzuni, na sio kitu zaidi ya chombo cha wazushi na makundi. """ "Kama ""Project d'instruction pour les colonies relativement aux décrets des 12 et 15,"" kitabu hiki kinaelezea maisha ya wanawake watatu wa Kifaransa waliopigana vita vya kwanza vya dunia."