The Abolishment Of Slavery During The French Revolution

Nature affects everything. These effects range from the reasoning behind our everyday decisions to any actions that are physically possible. The question of what nature allows has been debated for years, resulting in wars, mass executions, and the toppling of governmental institutions in the search for an answer. One such response to this overwhelming question was the French Revolution.
In the early eighteenth century, Europe was dominated by powerful monarchs that enforced a wide range of laws that greatly restricted certain groups. Yet, during this time of heavy restriction, the Enlightenment, a movement that spurred intellectual thinking, and questioned the major institutions at the time, occurred. Most notably, the Enlightenment questioned
the absolute authority that the monarchy held over society. This institution defined who was considered to be a citizen, who had the right to personhood, what religious practices one could partake in, what civil and political rights a person could have, and the legitimacy of one’s family structure.
Some intellectuals of the Enlightenment believed that the government should not have the authority to grant rights to some, while denying rights to others. They believed that nature and reason gave equal rights to all people. So, in the course of events during the French Revolution, many philosophes stated what they believed nature intended for humans. The rights that were argued for, abolishment of slavery, toleration of all religions, and women’s rights, were based on nature, and became known as natural rights. One of the first natural rights addressed by philosophes was the abolishment of slavery.
Slavery was a ‘natural’ institution that had been ingrained into society long before the French Revolution. The institution itself ranged in severity and reasoning. There was serfdom, which was a form of economic slavery. There was also the ‘traditional’ form of slavery in which the person was bought and sold as property. The legitimacy of stripping people of any rights they may have had, including any political rights and even the most basic ‘natural’ rights a person has, was highly contested during this age. One of the most prominent speakers calling for the abolishment of slavery, Marquis de Condorcet, wrote many documents denouncing the institution. In one highly acclaimed pamphlet, Condorcet wrote, “Although I am not the same color as you, I have always regarded you as my brothers [referring to African slaves]. Nature formed you with the same spirit, the same reason, the same virtues as whites…reducing a man to slavery, buying him, selling him, keeping him in servitude: these are truly crimes…” In this, Condorcet is condemning the institution of slavery because of the dehumanization of the slaves and that they have lost their rights. These rights of “property…the control over his time, his strength, of everything that nature has given him to maintain his life and satisfy his needs…” , he believes, come from nature and are inherent in every man. He also states that owning a slave
is not just an immoral act, but an act that is almost criminal in itself.
Another example of slavery being subjected to criticism during the French Revolution was the formation of the Society of the Friends of Blacks.
In the opening speech given by Jacques Brissot, one of the society’s active members, he stated, “… all men were free by Nature; that the Kingdom of the Franks must be free in reality as well as in name…How could his benevolent hand not be extended one day toward the Negroes who live under his Laws?” Brissot is claiming that men were once said to be free because of nature, yet the laws exclude blacks from being incorporated into the category of ‘men’. This statement once again shows that people at the time were questioning why there was slavery, when it is believed that nature creates all to be equal. Nature is the one who decided that everyone is equal and no man should contradict that, no matter the color of their
skin. The French Revolution also brought up the question of whether or not every religion should be allowed to practice or be given legitimacy. During this time, an array of religious sects were forming to create a society that was full of religious differences. However, during this time the monarchy was still in power. This meant that the religion of the land was still that of the monarchy as well. The continued pressure from the Church of the King caused great discrimination and even prosecution for anyone that was not the King’s religion. The discrimination ranged in severity, with some sects being allowed to exist in certain parts of France, while, in other places, they were banned entirely. Yet, it was clear that anyone following another religion was denied a variety of ‘natural’ rights. These rights include the legitimacy of their children, the legality of their marriage, and the ability to properly give or receive inheritances. The best known criticism of the discrimination against differing religious sects was by Voltaire. In his Treatise on Toleration, Voltaire states, “They ask only the protection of natural law, the validity of their marriages, security as to the condition of their children, the right to inherit from their fathers, and the enfranchisement of their persons…Natural law is that indicated to men by nature…Human law must in every case be based on natural law…The supposed right of intolerance is absurd and barbaric.” In this, Voltaire is questioning the reasoning behind the intolerance, for he does not understand why these people cannot enjoy such basic functions. Voltaire also makes it a point that all they are seeking are their natural rights, their inherent rights bestowed to them upon birth. Humans must not contradict or imped on rights given to all by nature. By the right of personhood, these rights extended to women as well. The Enlightenment and the French Revolution brought forth the notion that natural rights included equal rights for women. Society has always been divided into groups to be able to justify certain discriminatory tradition or ideals, and the most basic form of division was the gender of the persons. Laws, societal expectations, and educational constructs were based on the distinctions of each gender, and were, almost without exception, followed to the letter. This caused many social debates on the effectiveness or morality of gender-specific ideals or laws. During the French Revolution, many people spoke up about gaining equality for all, yet excluded women based on traditional ideals of female subservience. However, some philosophes were pro-women’s rights, including Marquis de Condorcet. In a newspaper article he wrote, Condorcet stated,
For example, have they [the philosophes and the legislators] not all violated the principle of equality of rights by quietly depriving half of mankind of the right to participate in the formation of the laws, by excluding women from the rights of citizenship?... For this exclusion not to be an act of tyranny one would have to prove that the natural rights of women are not absolutely the same those of men…show me a natural difference between men and women that can legitimately found exclusion from a right…

From this, it is evident that Condorcet is questioning the reasoning behind the exclusion of women from civil and political rights. He points out that there are differences between men and women, but in a philosophical sense they are the same. Women deserve the same natural rights as men because nature gave them the rights too. Another major writing during the French Revolution pointed out the same concept. In response to the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, Olympe de Gouges wrote The Declaration of Rights of Woman. She purposefully changes ‘man’ in the original document to ‘woman’ in her own to promote the idea that women deserve equal rights or equal inclusion to natural rights. In two of her points, de Gouges explicitly states the idea of nature or natural rights by stating, “…the exercise of natural rights of woman has no other limits than those that the perpetual tyranny of man opposes them…The laws of nature and reason prohibit all actions which are injurious to society. No hindrance should be put in the way of anything not prohibited by these wise and divine laws…” In these points, de Gouges explains that equality for women comes from the same source as what guarantees the freedoms and natural rights of men. She also makes it a point to say that these rights should not be infringed upon because they come from nature. So, once again, nature has been applied as the giver of these rights, and stated as the one to be the controller of the rights. Over the course of the Enlightenment, and then during the French Revolution, many people were requesting and/or fighting for rights. “The aim of the French Revolution is to destroy inequality and to re-establish the general welfare” became a founding ideal for a new blossoming French Republic. When the absolutism was taken away from the monarch, society began to grant rights to some citizens, but still excluded others. An example of this would be The Decree Abolishing the Feudal System stating “All citizens, without distinction of birth, are eligible to any office or dignity, whether ecclesiastical, civil, or military; and no profession shall imply any derogation.” This may ensure equality on paper, but in reality men of color rarely had the chance to rise to such a position, and women remained completely excluded. To bring light to these societal inadequacies, philosophes championed the idea of ‘natural’ rights to become the fighting force for the equality of the entire society. This included advocacy for the abolishment of slavery, which would allow a majority of enslaved Africans to become free and a part of French society. The ‘natural’ rights philosophes argued for in their writings also called for tolerance toward all religions. This would allow a much larger portion of France’s population to have legally legitimate weddings, children, and freedom to practice what they believe. The philosophes also advocated for women’s rights as an extension of their argument. They believed that a majority of society was being denied their rights, and if allowed could become a part of the political or social aspect of society. All of these movements or thoughts were based on one singular idea though. The idea was that rights come naturally to all humans through nature, and that nature should not be manipulated to lift others while forcing others down.