WI Napoleon do not reestablish slavery?

In 1791, the French colony of Saint-Domingue begin a slave revolt. In 1793, French Commissioners in St-Domingue proclaims full emancipation in the colony, which is followed in 1794 by an act abolishing slavery in French colonies.
This allowed France to keep the black majority of the island on its side, which was crucial to driving off the British and Spanish? Of course it also made the slave owners dedicated anti-revolutionnaries, who threatened to give over the French islands to the British.
By 1802 however Toussaint Louverture ruled Haïti even as he was nominally still loyal to France.

In the end, influenced by his wife's family (slaveowners in Martinique) Napoléon restored slavery in the French colonies. Toussaint immediately declared independance, and Napoléon would fail to take the island back.
What would happen had Napoléon not taken what many have said to be his worst decision? Would Haïti becomes independant anyway? And what about the other French colonies, would some of these be surrendered to the British by the planteurs, like Martinique was?
 
In 1791, the French colony of Saint-Domingue begin a slave revolt. In 1793, French Commissioners in St-Domingue proclaims full emancipation in the colony, which is followed in 1794 by an act abolishing slavery in French colonies.
This allowed France to keep the black majority of the island on its side, which was crucial to driving off the British and Spanish? Of course it also made the slave owners dedicated anti-revolutionnaries, who threatened to give over the French islands to the British.
By 1802 however Toussaint Louverture ruled Haïti even as he was nominally still loyal to France.

In the end, influenced by his wife's family (slaveowners in Martinique) Napoléon restored slavery in the French colonies. Toussaint immediately declared independance, and Napoléon would fail to take the island back.
What would happen had Napoléon not taken what many have said to be his worst decision? Would Haïti becomes independant anyway? And what about the other French colonies, would some of these be surrendered to the British by the planteurs, like Martinique was?

The situation is more complicated. There are two distinct, while interlocked, events : the slavery reinstitution and the Haitian independence. The slavery abolition was confronted with many resistances : in Martinique, planters revolted and went to the British in ordre to maintain their position in the Colony, in Guyane, Réunion and Ile de France (Mauritius), the abolition was never implemented while the colonies were never surrendered to the British. In Saint-Domingue, the situation had as consequence the constitution of a quasi-autonomous power, led by Toussaint. The only strength the abolitionists had was the ideal of liberty and rights of man. This ideal, and the men who supported it, were not in favour under Napoléon. Bonaparte's first attempt was a middle-way : he named Hugues, the man who liberated the slaves in Guadeloupe in order to fight against the British, as governor of Guyane. His order : to draw back the Colony into the Republic without alienating the local élites. Hugues did not re-established slavery, but implemented a "forced labour" organization. Toussaint followed his example in Saint-Domingue in 1800. So, in 1800, Saint-Domingue was a "good student" of the compromise between liberty principles and economical imperatives : in february 1801, Bonaparte named Toussaint Captain-General of Saint-Domingue. The rift between Toussaint and Bonaparte was due to the July 1801 Saint-Domingue Constitution in which Toussaint named himself Life Governor. While Bonaparte had no problem with Toussaint economical and social reforms, as they were compatible with his own, he could not accept a political rival. The Haitian Independence War started therefore before slavery was re-established.

The re-establishment of slavery was brought by the Amiens Peace talks. Martinique was to be given back to France, but the planters, the British representing them and all the colonial economical interests in France insisted the slavery "situation" needed to be fixed beforehand. So the law Bonaparte took in May 1802 was in fact a statu quo ante law : slavery was maintained (rather than enforced) in Martinique and Réunion, while Guyane, Guadeloupe and Saint-Domingue remained "free". In theory. In fact, with the tacit assent - or even the secret order - of Bonaparte, local governors re-established slavery in Guadeloupe and Guyane. In Haiti, the revolted saw this new turn on things as a token of their own future if they dealt with the French, so the war became only fiercer.

As for a PoD, the "middle-way" of 1799/1800, with freedom as a principle and forced labour on the ground, could be an alternative to the all-slavery path chosen by Bonaparte. OTL, the First Consul had just crushed the Jacobin opposition by blaming them (falsely) for the rue Saint-Nicaise assassination attempt (december 1800). With the Jacobins retaining more influence, Bonaparte could be willing to gave them a symbolic token in the form of theoritical "freedom" for all. For the Haitian Independence however, Toussaint and Bonaparte were on a colliding course. Maybe Toussaint dying early and Dessalines working with the French in order to win the civil war. Or a more intelligent leader for the Saint-Domingue expedition ? A Kleber-like general ? Ideal case would be Dumas, but he was at odds with Bonaparte.
 
@Cornelis Toussaint's constitution didn't come out of nowhere. From Avengers of the New World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution by Laurent Dubois pp 241-242:

He organized a coup against the parliament and created a new consular regime, which he dominated. Bonaparte staffed his Colonial Ministry with men who had been devoted defenders of slavery and proponents of colonial autonomy a decade before. Among them was Moreau de St. Méry, who had recently returned to Paris from exile in Philadelphia.22

In the early 1790s Moreau and his allies had advocated the formation of “particular laws” for the colonies as a way to prevent the granting of rights to free-coloreds, and the possibility of a reform or elimination of slavery. They had failed to stop the application of the universalist principles of the Revolution in Saint-Domingue; their political ideology had been roundly defeated in 1794. In 1800, however, after years of criticizing emancipation, the planters and their supporters had their revenge. Bonaparte’s new constitution decreed that because of the difference in the “nature of things and the climate,” the colonies were to be governed by “special laws.” Indeed, given differences in “habits, customs, interests,” as well as the “diversity” of agriculture and production, there were to be different laws applied to the different colonies of France in the Americas, Asia, and Africa. It was a profound shift away from the colonial policy envisioned by Etienne Laveaux a few years before: the colonies would no longer have representatives in Paris, as they had during the previous years of Revolution. Continental France and her colonies, united under a single legal order for years, were again separated. It was a victory for an old tradition of creole legal thinking embodied in the work of Moreau, although it was a far cry from what many planters had hoped for at the beginning of the revolution: the “special laws” would not be shaped by the residents of the colony, but instead decreed by the metropolitan government.23

Bonaparte understood that in the Caribbean the return of the policy of “particular laws” would be seen by many as a looming threat to liberty itself. And so, as they announced their new policy, the consuls also declared to the people of Saint-Domingue that “the sacred principles of the liberty and equality of the blacks will never suffer, among you, any attack or modification.” The “brave blacks” should remember that “the French people are the only ones who recognize your right to liberty and equality.” In case they forgot, Bonaparte ordered that this statement should be written “in letters of gold” on the flags of all the military units in SaintDomingue. Louverture, who was confirmed by Bonaparte in his rank of “general-in-chief” of Saint-Domingue, refused to follow this order when he received it several months later. He probably noted that the consul’s declaration promised only that liberty and equality would not be touched “among you,” that is, in Saint-Domingue; aware of the implications of the idea of “particular laws,” he was also probably aware of the opening the new policy allowed for the acceptance of slavery in some parts of the empire. “It is not a circumstantial liberty conceded only to us that we want,” he apparently said; “it is the absolute acceptance of the principle that no man, whether born red [i.e., mulatto], black, or white, can be the property of another.”24

Louverture recognized the opportunity created by these new circumstances and seized on it to propose his own laws for Saint-Domingue. On February 4, 1801—the seventh anniversary of the abolition of slavery by the National Convention—he announced the convocation of a “Constituent Assembly” that would draft a constitution for Saint-Domingue. The time had come to “lay the foundations” for the colony’s “prosperity” by creating “laws appropriate for our habits, our traditions, our climate, our industry.” He used the language of difference deployed by the French government, but with a different intent. Where it had once served to assert white supremacy in the colony despite the universalist promises of the Revolution, Louverture now used it to justify the creation of a body of law that sanctified and solidified a new regime in which men of African descent were in command. Instead of waiting for Bonaparte to send his own laws, he decided to make his own.25

Under these circumstances, it's hardly surprising that Toussaint tried to go for autonomy. Etienne Laveaux had fought for slave rights and abolition and was also representing Toussaints interests in Paris. It's not exactly a stretch to believe that Napoleon intended to remove Toussaint from power and restore slavery-which was in fact completely correct as we can we can see from the restoration of slavery in Guadeloupe and co. We know that Napoleon authorized Richepance to restore slavery in Guadeloupe on July 13 and a month later he instructed Victor Hugues to prepare to do the same in Guiana (The Slaves Who Defeated Napoleon pp 187-188).Even if he left things up to Leclerc in the moment of conquest, the ultimate outcome of Napoleons policies was the restoration of slavery. For example Leclercs secret instructions to trick the black leadership (including Mulattoes) and blacks with military experience, kill or deport them, and disarm all black people after gaining their trust makes little sense otherwise. A coded letter from Leclerc to Admiral Decres on 24 July 1802 is equally enlightening:

“Do not think of restoring slavery for some time. I think I can arrange everything so that my successor has no more to do than to put the government’s decree into effect, but after the endless proclamations that I have issued here to ensure the blacks their freedom, I do not want to contradict myself, but assure the First Consul [Napoleon] that my successor will find everything ready”

Given Napoleons actions and words, I don't feel he had any intention to cooperate with Toussaint even without the constitution. It's pretty clear Napoleon was a racist at least. From Avengers p.261:

One contemporary reported that, as Bonaparte’s plans unraveled in Saint Domingue, he angrily declared: “I am for the whites because I am white; I have no other reason, and that one is good.” “How is it possible that liberty was given to Africans, to men who had no civilization, who didn’t even know what the colony was, what France was? It is perfectly clear that those who wanted the freedom of the blacks wanted the slavery of the whites.”

And of course we have his instructions to deport all white women who had prostituted themselves to black people as well as the various discriminatory decrees passed after the May 20 1802 law that drastically reduced the right of citizens of color.

The idea that intense lobbying and pressure pushed Napoleon to restore slavery is false in my opinion. The Slaves Who Defeated Napoleon on page 186 notes that the actual picture is much blurrier. Many people were actually afraid to publish their thoughts advocating for slavery because of the perceived public reaction. Furthermore, multiple people (including former planters from St.Domingue) outright said and wrote that it was impossible to restore slavery to St.Domingue and a bad idea to invade it. The colonial lobby was fractitious enough that it was up to Napoleon on whether slavery should be restored. In fact, despite the fact that the two chambers of the consulate were supposed to be rubber stamps on his authority and despite the purging of his liberal enemies in March 1802, the May 20 law only passed with relatively slim majorities in each chamber. This means that even the maintenance of slavery in Martinique generated an unexpected level of opposition even after the Jacobin persecution in 1800. It was not political pressure that made Bonaparte restore slavery. I'm not sure what you mean by the British representing the planters?
 
@123456789blaaa , I globally agree with you, except I think you underevaluate the foreign context of the re-establishment of slavery. It was not only a case of « Colonial party against Jacobins », with Bonaparte as a racist-motivated dictator (although he was racist), but also a hot topic in the talks between British and French. The British wanted the slavery to be re-established (or rather, not abolished) in Martinique as they feared unrest if the French tried to free the slaves afterwards. That drove some of the men who had no particular opinion on the « issue », like Talleyrand, in the re-establishment camp.
 
@123456789blaaa , I globally agree with you, except I think you underevaluate the foreign context of the re-establishment of slavery. It was not only a case of « Colonial party against Jacobins », with Bonaparte as a racist-motivated dictator (although he was racist), but also a hot topic in the talks between British and French. The British wanted the slavery to be re-established (or rather, not abolished) in Martinique as they feared unrest if the French tried to free the slaves afterwards. That drove some of the men who had no particular opinion on the « issue », like Talleyrand, in the re-establishment camp.
You'd think Saint Domingue would be more valuable though. In other words, if Napoléon clearly had to chose between re-establishing slavery and losing Saint-Domingue or not doing so and losing Martinique, would he chose to keep abolition? Beside, you'd think standing for abolition would give him good credit as a protector of the ideals of the Revolution. Perhaps that would be enough to keep abolition, if his position is more precarious than it was IOTL?
 
@123456789blaaa , I globally agree with you, except I think you underevaluate the foreign context of the re-establishment of slavery. It was not only a case of « Colonial party against Jacobins », with Bonaparte as a racist-motivated dictator (although he was racist), but also a hot topic in the talks between British and French. The British wanted the slavery to be re-established (or rather, not abolished) in Martinique as they feared unrest if the French tried to free the slaves afterwards. That drove some of the men who had no particular opinion on the « issue », like Talleyrand, in the re-establishment camp.

Where'd you read about this?

It seems odd that the British would care so much about Martinique when St.Domingue already revolted. How could it effect them? It's also not like Napoleon really cared about placating other powers. He constantly pushed them around and ignored their wishes. Why would British opposition effect his decision on slavery when we look at all the other things he did that caused the Peace of Amiens to break?
 
Where'd you read about this?

It seems odd that the British would care so much about Martinique when St.Domingue already revolted. How could it effect them? It's also not like Napoleon really cared about placating other powers. He constantly pushed them around and ignored their wishes. Why would British opposition effect his decision on slavery when we look at all the other things he did that caused the Peace of Amiens to break?

Because the British did hold Martinique, not Saint-Domingue !

The break of Amiens was at least caused as much by the British as by Bonaparte and it did not happen for some years after the slavery decisions we are speaking of. This is not the first time you seem at odds with the chronology of the facts, as earlier when you stated Moreau de Saint-Méric was the man who engineered the colonial policy of Bonaparte when in fact Moreau was named at the Ministry of Marine (colonial Ministry did not exist) before Bonaparte came back from Egypt and he was employed by Bonaparte...in Parma, far from any colonial policy-making.
 
Because the British did hold Martinique, not Saint-Domingue !

The break of Amiens was at least caused as much by the British as by Bonaparte and it did not happen for some years after the slavery decisions we are speaking of. This is not the first time you seem at odds with the chronology of the facts, as earlier when you stated Moreau de Saint-Méric was the man who engineered the colonial policy of Bonaparte when in fact Moreau was named at the Ministry of Marine (colonial Ministry did not exist) before Bonaparte came back from Egypt and he was employed by Bonaparte...in Parma, far from any colonial policy-making.

The British were giving Martinique back. The only way the slaves could be freed in the first place is if France took back possession of them. How does it make sense for the British to fear unrest when the unrest could only come about when France gained back the island? You also didn't answer my question on where you read this.

I don't want to get into my reasons for thinking that the breaking of the Peace is mainly Napoleons fault. I am perfectly well aware that the break of Amiens happened after the slavery decisions. I am using the fact that Napoleon clearly didn't really care about placating Britain or any other countries throughout the rest of his career to ask why he would suddenly only care when it came to slavery. Please don't say that I'm at odds with the chronology of the facts when you just aren't understanding my post correctly.

I didn't say that Moreau de Saint-Méric was the man who engineered the colonial policy of Bonaparte. I quoted from a book by one of the leading scholars of the Haitian revolution which said that Bonaparte staffed his Colonial Ministry with men who had been devoted defenders of slavery and proponents of colonial autonomy a decade before and among them was Moreau. He cites Paul Roussier, ed., Lettres du Général Leclerc (Paris, 1937), and Yves Benot, La Démence coloniale sous Napoléon (Paris, 1991). The quote then says that Bonaparte 1800 decision was a victory for an old tradition of creole legal thinking embodied in the work of Moreau. It really pisses me off when you represent my post so blatantly incorrectly as evidence for me "being at odds with the chronology of the facts". At the very least, I have a really hard time seeing how you could genuinely miss the fact that I was quoting from a book. Furthermore, if you thought the quote was wrong, then why are you only now pointing it out instead of in your earlier response that said you generally agreed with me?

EDIT: The Ministry of the Marine was in charge of the colonies. Hence it was the "colonial ministry". That is the most natural interpretation for the work of a distinguished historian. In 1800, Moreau de Saint-Meric was still a member of the Ministry. He only moved to Parma in 1801 and became an administrator in 1802.
 
Last edited:
Top