Module 4: My Thoughts on "Rights"

The topic of “rights” has caused much debate over the centuries. As discussed in the blog prompt by Dr. Wright, some social thinkers, such as T.H. Marshall, have suggested that rights like citizenship have evolved over the years. Others, such as Edmund Burke, have suggested that certain rights like participation in government do not exist. Still others, such as Jeremy Bentham, have suggested that rights are simply “nonsense”.[1] Since “rights” in general have flexible definitions, I can understand how each of these social thinkers reached their conclusions (having an opinion about “rights” is a right, right?). However, in my eyes, I see “rights”, whether civil or political or natural, as nebulous, esoteric ideals that gain meaning as they are applied and tested. Therefore I think the history of “rights” in the modern world has followed a pattern of forming ideals, trying to apply ideals, and then reevaluating, and possibly editing, the initial ideals.

An example I would like to use is the relationship between the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen and free blacks and slaves in Saint-Domingue during the French Revolution. In the Declaration of the Rights, Article 1 reads, “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights”.[2] On paper, this statement made sense; it advanced the ideals of the National Assembly. But until it was put into practice, it meant nothing, and although the National Assembly was united about the ideal of equality, it became divided during its application, specifically over how it should be applied to free blacks and slaves.

This issue of how the Declaration’s rights would extend to free blacks and slaves was painfully present in Saint-Domingue, which, during the time of the French Revolution, was a colony of France. Three very diverse ethnic groups coexisted in Saint-Domingue: whites, free blacks, and slaves. The colony’s economy (and existence, almost) depended upon the slave trade and slave labor, which helped power the white-owned indigo, coffee, and sugar plantations. Unsurprisingly, the thought of ending the slave trade – or even worse, slavery – was not popular among French merchants and planters because of how it would affect the island’s economy. As Moreau de St. Méry said, “No slaves, no sugar; no sugar, no colonies!”[3]

Support did exist back in Paris for abolition of the slave trade and the emancipation of the slaves around the time of the Declaration. This was shown in the 1789 document The Abolition of Negro Slavery or Means for Ameliorating Their Lot which stated that “slavery should only continue to exist for criminals condemned according to the laws” and that “liberty ought to be restored to that multitude of unfortunate beings, our brothers though of different color, whom European greed has kidnapped annually for nearly three centuries from the coasts of Africa and condemned to an eternal captivity, hard work, and harsh treatment”.[4] Support also came from the Society of Friends of Blacks. Using the Declaration as backing, the Society was able to help pass a measure in May 1791 that allowed “every man born of a free father and a free mother” to vote. This was much less of an accomplishment than it seemed because very few freedmen had free mothers, giving voting privileges to only around 1,000 out of the 30,000 freedmen.[5]

Proslavery efforts, however, were just as strong. Some, such as lawyer Antoine Pierre Barnave, argued that France’s colonies should be exempt from the Declaration, stating in 1790 that France “never intended to include them [the colonies] in the constitution that it has decreed for the kingdom or to subject them to laws which might be incompatible with their particular, local proprieties”.[6] In early 1790, twenty-four petitions were brought before the Assembly that requested the continuation of the slave trade, compared to the zero that requested abolition.[7]  Opposition increased as a violent slave revolt erupted later in 1791, which led the previously mentioned voting measure to be repealed in September.[8] As the Society had explained in 1790, “If some motive might on the contrary push them [the blacks] to insurrection, might it not be the indifference of the National Assembly about their lot? Might it not be the insistence on weighing them down with chains, when one consecrates everywhere this eternal axiom: that all men are born free and equal in rights. So then therefore there would only be fetters and gallows for the blacks while good fortune glimmers only for the whites?”[9]

The struggle became even more complex as mulattoes and free blacks “took varying and sometimes contradictory positions, some supporting the whites, some taking the side of the slaves, some trying to maintain an independent position”.[10] For example, Julien Raimond, a mulatto from Saint-Domingue, was a fervent supporter of civil rights for free blacks, but he was hesitant to support the abolition of the slave trade because his family ran a lucrative plantation in Saint-Domingue.[11] Raimond had, in theory, wanted the Declaration to apply to free blacks, but he altered his definition of “rights” when, in reality, the ideal was too risky to apply.

In essence, I think the example of Saint-Domingue demonstrates the complexity of how “rights” can be perceived and applied in various contexts. (Eventually, in January 1804, Saint-Domingue gained its freedom, and Haiti became the first black republic of the Americas.[12]) I think as time progresses, “rights”, such as equality, will continue be reevaluated and, as in Saint-Domingue’s case, redrawn, and, in the process, they will continue to define and redefine themselves somewhere in that great divide between thought and reality.  

---

[1] Kent Wright, Module 4 Blog Prompt (Arizona State Online, 2012); from HST 300 Historical Inquiry, ecollege.asu.edu (accessed February 9, 2012).

[2] Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, 1789, in The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History ed. Lynn Hunt (Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 1996), 77.

[3] Forster, Robert, “The French Revolution, people of color, and slavery” in The Global Ramifications of the French Revolution eds. Joseph Klaits and Michael H. Haltzel (Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 1994), 89-93.

[4] The Abolition of Negro Slavery or Means for Ameliorating Their Lot, 1789, in The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History ed. Lynn Hunt (Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 1996), 102.

[5] Forster, “The French Revolution”, 90-99. 

[6] Speech of Barnave, in The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History ed. Lynn Hunt (Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 1996), 111.

[7] Forster, “The French Revolution”, 90-92.

[8] Ibid, 99.

[9] Society of the Friends of Blacks, Address to the National Assembly in Favor of the Abolition of the Slave Trade, in The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History ed. Lynn Hunt (Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 1996), 108.

[10] Lynn Hunt, The French Revolution and Human Rights: A Brief Documentary History (Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 1996), 104.

[11] Forster, “The French Revolution”, 95-97.

[12] Ibid, 103-104.