Slavery & Reform In West Africa: Toward Emancipation In Nineteenth-Century

Chapter 7. Slaves and Masters in French-Administered Senegal

137 Chapter 7 Slaves and Masters in French-Administered Senegal In Senegal, the period of expansionist regimes in the 1850s and 1860s was followed by an extended period of disengagement from the conquests of the interior. The rapid retreat of French authority was the result of the unsupportable cost of maintaining the extensive colony in a period of unusual economic stress underlain by the Third Republic’s long and painful recovery from the war with Prussia. Alone among the larger Sereer and Wolof states, Waalo remained under ¤rm French control. The reestablishment of a protectorate over Kaajor in 1883 went some distance toward reversing this policy, and this became the model for restored French rule over much of Senegal in the 1890s. During the period between the retreat of 1869 and the establishment of protectorates , however, the dif¤culty of reconciling the administration’s tacit acceptance of slavery with France’s abolitionist laws became increasingly evident, so that slavery became the principal impetus for the extension of “protectorate” policy throughout the region. The Judiciary and Slavery During Expansion and Retreat: Senegal, 1854–1878 Colonial regimes in both Senegal and the Gold Coast approached the question of slavery and emancipation with the dual goals of satisfying abolitionist pressure You are reading copyrighted material published by Ohio University Press/Swallow Press. Unauthorized posting, copying, or distributing of this work except as permitted under U.S. copyright law is illegal and injures the author and publisher. 138 Slavery and Reform in West Africa while maintaining the socioeconomic status quo. Whereas the Gold Coast administration speci¤cally engineered the Indian model so as to minimize the impact of emancipation, the administrators of colonial Senegal had to work around a much more stringent document that called for the active liberation of slaves. As we have seen, Baudin, Du Château, and Faidherbe managed to evade or subvert operative clauses of the 1848 emancipation so as to ensure the colony’s pro¤tability and security. In each case, they were able to secure the sanction of their superiors in the metropole. Unfortunately for them, however, the 1848 extension of citizenship to inhabitants of St. Louis and Gorée established a competing set of authorities by placing the colony’s justice system under the French Ministry of Justice. Both justices and prosecutors were appointed by and reported to the Ministry of Justice, and their actions were likely to be shaped by metropolitan pressure rather than (or as well as) by pragmatic colonial concerns.1 Moreover, French law gave these judicial of¤cers wider latitude than their British counterparts both in investigation and in prosecution of crimes, including those involving slavery. Fortunately for the administration, the only punishment for slave dealing dictated by the 1848 emancipation laws was the loss of citizenship for the perpetrator.2 Faidherbe deduced from this that only citizens could be punished for slave-trading or -owning offenses, and thus that subjects of the states brought under French control were immune from judicial sanction.3 The tribunals of Gorée and St. Louis in the 1840s and early 1850s therefore didn’t deal with slavery at all.4 The reuni¤cation of Senegal and Gorée in 1854 and a subsequent imperial decree by Louis Napoleon codifying justice in Senegal threatened this status quo by establishing an independent judiciary in the colony. The supreme court that emerged, the cour d’assises (court of assizes), sat at St. Louis and heard all major cases in the colony, including those involving slave dealing. In a nod to the clout of both the habitants and the local administration, the 1854 decree gave the power to determine guilt or innocence not to the French présidentdela courimpérial (presiding justice) but to four assessors “taken from among the notables . . . composed of [of¤cers], former of¤cers, and the principal landowners and merchants of St. Louis and Gorée.”5 A great deal of judicial authority within the colony was thus vested in the hands of proponents of a pragmatic slave policy. Conversely, the 1854 imperial decree guaranteed the independence of the colonial prosecutors, thus creating a split between those who brought cases to court and those who tried them. Within months of the decree, public prosecutors charged three Moors with having brought two female slaves and a young boy into the colony—allegedly for sale. Aware of the limitations of the 1848 procYou are reading copyrighted material published by Ohio University Press/Swallow Press. Unauthorized posting, copying, or...