The People and the slave-rhetoric

The People and the slave-rhetoric

Over the years, the dynamics of societies have gradually changed to incorporate moral and political persuasion of its members as well as its changing needs. Since the early years during the Age of Enlightenment, the need for a cohesive society and one that observes social order birthed the significance of a social contract. In this social contract, people that make up a society agree to live together based on an agreement of rules and confines that guides their political and moral behaviors. This is the basic principle of a societal agreement that establishes the center of power and defines the people and its rulers. For any social contract to stand, there must exist the people and the agreement that will then guide their political and even obligations. The significance of the ‘people’ cannot be understated and plays a critical role in maintaining the equilibrium of society, as rulers cannot rule without the people. The people cannot rule without a ruler coming from itself. In Rousseau’s Selections from the social contract, he observes that laws, agreements or conventions can be deemed bonding when supported by the people. Nonetheless, while laws and or conventions are essential in maintaining order in a society, the fundamental being and collectiveness of the people are what defines a ‘nation’ ‘politically. Given the significance of the concept of the ‘people’ as Rousseau observes, this essay discusses this concept in broad as well as the slave rhetoric posed by the rising political philosophy and expansion of liberties.

To begin with, in his first development of meaning to society, Rousseau analogizes a family to a basic societal structure by drawing comparisons to how it’s run. In his observations, he alludes to a family as a perfect model of political society (Rousseau, 48). In it, the father assumes the leadership role of the family while the children assume the role of the ‘people.’ It is essential to highlight that this is one of the ancient and the only form of social order that is natural and based on agreements. From Rousseau’s proposition, the ‘people’ can thus be described as subjects to a ruler just as a slave is to master. However, while the subjectivity of the slave to their master is borne out force and power, in a political society, the people are deemed free and equal. They are also considered the custodians of their freedoms.

Moreover, Rousseau opines to the conception of the ‘people’ as a process that begins with the formation of a ‘social pact’. He further defines social pact under the terms where “Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and we as a body receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.” From this, a collective body is thus obtained with its unity, will, common self, and own life. As a result, a public person formed out of this and by uniting with others, therefore, forms the ‘body politic’ which may inform the formation of a state “Rousseau, 56”. It is important to highlight that the associates of this particular ‘body politic’ therefore earn the name the ‘people.’

Besides Rousseau’s arguments in the social contract theory, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789 captures significant elements of human liberties. In the chatter’s 17 articles, several issues touching on people’s rights, such as citizen’s equality before the law and the right to participate in legislation, are tackled. The chatter uses the name ‘citizens’ in arguing about the peoples’ respective rights. This term is derived from the ‘people,’ which, according to Rousseau, is used when referring to individual liberties as they are “participants in a sovereign authority” (Rousseau, 56).

The race for recognition of civil liberties and rights among the black communities and mullatoes in respective colonial territories is detailed in The coming of the black revolution. Here, the social imaginaries which mainly involved the planters and the deputies of the Estates-General are seen to exercise power over these territories. During the French revolution, these colonists wanted autonomy in running Saint Domingue and brought to an end the ‘Ministerial Despotism”. This was aimed at increasing their colonial possessions and maintain authority over Saint Domingue. On the other hand, the mullato population and the gens de couleur mainly wanted to be accorded the right to property and representation in the National Assembly.

Nonetheless, as the French revolution took shape, there was an emerging conflict among the mullatoes and the colonists. While the colonists wanted the right to self-rule, the French leadership in Paris and the king would not buy it. Equally, the black population wanted the right of representation in constituting the leadership of Saint Domingue due to their numbers. The different demands of these respective groups presented a conflict that fanned the revolution. Consequently, the emergence of the slave revolution was a gradual process that was first birthed by the exposure to new ideas and the talk of liberty in the French revolution.

Interestingly, the slaves interpreted these messages in their ways to mean the king in France was vouching for their independence. Besides, the slaves are also observed to have made different interpretations of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen of 1789. Their wrong Interpretation, different from the political philosophers who wrote it, is informed by the existing suspicion and competition between the French administration colonists and landowners in Saint Dominguez.

During the French revolution, a key proponent of universal human liberties, Robespierre championed critical proclamations such as peoples’ rights and citizens and even supported the extension of its application to black people in Saint Domingue. However, there was a caveat that it would only apply to the black population that was already free or born of free parents. The colonists responded by claiming that by acquiring their political rights, the black people would make France lose its colonies. As observed in The Coming of the Black Revolution soon after the emergence of the French Revolution in France, the colonists and the slaves soon knew that they needed each other to achieve their respective aspirations. For instance, the colonist and landowners knew they needed the support of the black people for them to succeed in acquiring self-autonomy. Moreover, in the publication’ Fear of Emancipation and Revolt,’ the author expresses concern that the libertarian drift of the French revolution and its human rights ideals was posing a danger to the slave regime of Saint Domingue as it fuelled slave revolt.

As the French Revolution gathered pace, the free black population in Saint Dominguez understood that the granting of freedoms and possible abolition of slavery would affect them since they, alongside white colonists, owned slaves too. They had been given a sizeable number of slaves to control by the white colonists. In the letter, the author paints the free blacks, most of whom were of mixed racial descent as still part of the European culture and original citizens of France. By differentiating, the free blacks and the slaves, the author paints a different understanding of the development in France. This can be attributed to the different Interpretation and expectations of the respective groups. Moreover, the author demonstrates an understanding of the racial difference between free blacks and slaves by characterizing free blacks as ‘denoting America’ and slave blacks denoting Africa.

In the Letter to the French Directory, L’Ouverture demonstrates a deeper understanding of the relationship between France and a free Saint Domingue by equating the happiness of his children to that of France (p, 5). Importantly, he puts forth critical values and principles that France prides itself on, such as equal rights to humans and respect for human dignity. This is the hallmark of the decree of 16 Pluviose. Moreover, he argues that the spirit of the decree was based on humanity and equality for all humans hence the abolition of slavery. Based on this Interpretation, he challenges the tentativeness and hesitance of the French directorate to reprimand the impolitic speech by Vaublanc.