Monday, February 16, 2009
Short Essay 3
As soon as the establishment of slavery came into existence in France there were struggles to end the institution. Motivations to free enslaved people in France were different among different groups of people. Some people desperately fought to free slaves because of religious and cultural principles while others sought personal gain. France, a Catholic country, believed that Christians were superior to followers of opposing religions. French Christians were enticed to emancipate fellow Christians to prove their religion’s superiority. If a slave became a Catholic while enslaved, the French fought to free them. A law was put into place which “granted freedom to Catholic slaves owned by non-Catholics…freedom from Catholic masters depended on their own good graces” (Peabody 32). Non-Catholic masters were not entitled to service from Catholics under French law. Late in the eighteenth century many slaves converted to the religion to become emancipated. French courts were eager to permit and execute this law because it displayed the dominance of their religion over all who resided in France. Another set of individuals in France that tirelessly fought to free slave were lawyers. Countless Africans challenged their slave status in court with the help of attorneys. The main motivation behind the lawyers’ assistance was personal gain. Representing a slave in his or her fight for freedom held rewards for attorneys such as money and a prospering reputation. French lawyer Nicolas De Foissey would often present his bill to the slave he was helping before the judge in order to recover all fees owed to him. Foissey’s action made it clear that “financial motives contributed to the reasons why lawyers, especially procureurs, took on similar cases” (Peabody 103). Lawyers were driven by monetary reasons to free Africans enslaved in France. Due to the many laws concerning the freeing of enslaved persons lawyers were able to benefit tremendously in an anti-slavery crusade. In some instances, however, lawyers felt sympathy for slaves and contributed to the fight for their freedom because of high ideals (Peabody 104). Throughout the eighteenth century in France the struggle to free enslaved people was prominent in society. Slaves were aided in their fight because of many different motivations harvested by the French people. Some were motivated by personal principles while others wanted personal compensation. Though both groups were able to receive something for their efforts, neither one’s reward could compare to the Africans who received freedom.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I definitely agree with you that the lawyers took on cases for freedom both for selfish and selfless reasons. It was not often that these cases sided in favor of the slaveowner, so the lawyer was basically guaranteed to win. I think it's also interesting that only certain people were allowed to own slaves in an effort to contain slavery in the colonies and out of France. It didn't necessarily work, because slaveowners worked to find ways around it. I also think it's important to point out that the monarchy, for the most part, did not support slavery in country. In fact, Louis XIV initiated the Freedom Principle. If other governments had been less tolerant maybe slavery could have been brought to an end much sooner.
ReplyDeleteYour comments regarding the French Catholics were right on the money. I found it interesting also that the Catholics in France saw their religion as superior to other Christian faiths and in so doing used their faith as a catalyst for the freedom movement there.
ReplyDeleteHi Amanda-
ReplyDeleteI agree with your conclusions that the attorneys may or may not have been motivated by high-minded principles. It makes me think of that line from the Talking Heads, "Same as it ever was." The attorneys, however, were consistently exploiting two legal loopholes through which the enslaved were obtaining their freedom. The first was the Freedom Principle, which was never a law but a long standing cultural myth and the second was the lack of registration with the Parlement of Paris of certain statutes which would have legalized slavery and attempted to control the numbers of slaves in France. By not registering the statutes with the Parlement, the proto-governmental body effectively limited the power of the monarchy. Once again, the scenario speaks less about high-mindedness and more about personal gain and struggles for power.
I think you have made some very valid points in your essay. I agree with you all that the lawyers were definitely involved with anti=slavery for their own personal gain. They weren't in it because they felt it was right, they were prospering both financially and with their reputations. The simple fact that none of these laws were recognized by Parliament further proves that the abolition movement in France has hidden motives. I enjoyed reading your essay, and you last sentence really takes is home; good job.
ReplyDelete