In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

1 antislavery, abolitionism, and abolition in France from the end of the eighteenth Century to the 1840s Marcel dorigny Before getting to the heart of the matter, it is important to clarify the terminology : “antislavery” and “abolitionism” are not equivalent terms, even if there exists admittedly a continuity between the two. strictly speaking, though one could not be abolitionist without being antislavery, there is a qualitative difference between one term and the other. Proponents of antislavery limited themselves, in a way, to a moral condemnation of slavery based on religious, ethical, and economic principles, but they did not envision a way out, nor the means by which a society founded on slavery might transform itself into one founded on free labor. on the other hand, abolitionism was a form of political engagement, in which was conceived a concrete means of abolition, and even the kind of society to be established once slavery had been eliminated. The organization of a postslavery society became the main question for abolitionists , and all conflicts and disagreements arising in the subsequent period revolved around how to achieve this goal. i will therefore limit myself to distinguishing between antislavery, which laid the groundwork for the condemnation of a system, and abolitionism, which proceeded one step further by considering both abolition itself and its characteristics, as well as the means of transition from the age of enslaved labor to the age of free labor. a second point of terminology must be addressed: what was an abolitionist with respect to a reformist? nelly schmidt published an important book on this theme, although centered almost exclusively on the nineteenth century.1 There was, however, a continuity between the eighteenth century and the nineteenth century in this regard: there were many colonial reformers during the ancien regime and in the first half of the nineteenth century, who for the most part adhered to a logic of maintaining slavery, and their actions and proposals were aimed rather at adapting slavery, not eliminating it.2 Most often though these reform projects faced considerable resistance from the supporters of the system, who almost always adopted an uncompromisingly conservative position. For them, the 56 Antislavery, Abolitionism, and Abolition | 57 system of slavery formed a coherent whole, and any reform, even at the margins, would lead to its rapid destruction. on the contrary, abolitionists were concerned with the complete elimination of slavery and anticipated the future of the colonies without slaves. There were certainly both “progressivist” abolitionists—they, in fact, were the majority—whoenvisionedabolitionasaprocess,and“immediatist” abolitionists— long an isolated minority—who rejected the idea of a progressive exit from slavery and considered there existed no intermediary legal category between serfdom and freedom. Beyond their respective differences as to the rhythm of slavery’s demise, all abolitionists shared a common project: according to them, a colonial society without slaves was not only possible, but desirable, and in fact the only way to both keep existing colonies and create new ones. a wide spectrum of perspectives was therefore represented within the large family of radicalist and gradualist abolitionists, including those who thought that abolition was unnecessary because slavery would disappear automatically as the result of preventive measures taken at its roots, imagining thus a natural extinction of slavery, without conflict, without crises or violence, preempting even the need to legislate.3 i would argue, without passing judgment on their accuracy, that these more or less optimistic plans were all part of the abolitionist movement insofar as they all imagined the future of the colonies without slaves. This rejection of slavery as the only possible means of labor within the tropical colonies constituted a radical break from the aforementioned reformists, for whom there was an explicit and consubstantial relationship between the colonies and slavery, and who asserted that colonies were impossible without slaves, at least in the tropics. Between these two approaches lies a fundamental intellectual rift defined by a radical difference in anthropological conceptions. in the eighteenth century, abolitionists were an isolated minority since conceiving of the future of the colonies without slaves was the privilege of a daring elite; the ideological dominance of slavery was the result of continuous propaganda on the part of colonizers and shipowners, who systematically depicted abolitionists as enemies of the colonies. This was the recurring leitmotif in libels directed at the abolitionist movement, from its very beginnings: the société des amis des noirs (society of the Friends of Blacks), in France, was constantly accused of being at the service...

Share