"Napoleon, Haiti, and Slavery" Topic

Enfant Perdus asked (on the "corruption" thread):

**Two honest questions:

How corrupt were the French Naval dockyards during the period? I ask this because the shocking abuses in HBM's Royal Navy make my head spin and I was wondering if it was as bad in the French service.

Why did Napoleon reestablish slavery and deny rights to free blacks? I've read reasoned arguments that it was a)a scheme to strengthen France's weakened position in her overseas colonies or b)caving to influence of plantation owners (and didn't Josephine have a hand in it?).

This is not a troll, and I hope we can all play nicely. ***

I thought this was a good discussion topic in its own right, so I took the liberty of moving here. Hope nobody minds.

**"Why did Napoleon reestablish slavery and deny rights to free blacks?" **

Well, I think it's fair to ask how "free" they ever really got during the revolution, in the first place. Remember that slavery was abolished on paper by the National Assembly, but certainly not in fact by the plantation owners on St. Domingue. And the Bourgeois lawmakers who dominated the first two years of the Revolution certainly didn't want to set a precedent that would damage their own economic bases. (Just as with bourgeois activists everywhere in the late 1700s, they were mostly merchants. Their livelihoods still depended upon cheap imports of raw materials.) So they made very little effort to force the issue on Haiti. By the time the island erupted in bloodshed, so had France itself, and the Jacobins had the upper hand.

By the time Napoleon came to power, the Haitian slaves had liberated themselves, and most of the plantation owners had fled. (A lot of them were in exile on Cuba, others were scattered around the remains of France's overseas empire.) They weren't as influential a voice in French politics as they once had been.

When Napoleon sent LeClerc's army to Haiti, he wasn't acting solely on French interests. Remember that Toussaint l'Overture's forces had not only liberated Haiti, but they'd also marched over the mountains and occupied the Spanish half of the island, too. So Spain gave its blessing to Napoleon's idea for a reconquest.

As for Josephine's influence, Napoleon told Gourgeaud that the Haitian expedition was, "one of my greatest errors... I believe that Josephine, being born in Martinique, had some influence on that expedition directly, but a woman who sleeps with her husband always has some influence on him." That seems like a pretty general comment, though. I don't know if she pulled any strings or not.

More to the point, though: Napoleon wrote a letter to Toussaint l'Overture right after Brumaire, a proclamation he titled, "From the First Among the Whites to the First Among the Blacks," in which he said:

"Remember, brave Negroes, that France alone recognizes your liberty and your equal rights."

So a question for me is: 'What changed in Napoleon's calculations of the situation? He had once felt comfortable letting Haiti go, but then obviously changed his mind. Why?' (I don't have an answer for that; I'm curious.)

Of course, there's one more theory about why Napoleon invaded Haiti...

It was the only way to get his kid sister Pauline out of bed with General MacDonald and out of the newspapers for a while, where she kept embarrassing that doofus brother-in-law, Victor LeClerc.

One theory about why Napoleon invaded Haiti:

The sugar islands were the equivalent of oil sheikdoms today, a real cash cow. Haiti had been one of the biggest, before it erupted in rebellion. Napoleon thought he could get it back in order and use it as a base to colonize the Louisiana territory, which he was engaged in stealing from the inept King of Spain and his corrupt minister (and cuckolder) Godoy. LeClerc was sent with a fairly large army to re-establish a major French presence in the New World.

When yellow fever killed LeClerc and most of his army, and the slave army held out in the mountains, these plans faded. War with England was about to start again, and the British could be counted on to steal Louisiana from the French, using the Royal Navy. So Napoleon decided to sell the land for hard cash to Jefferson and to strengthen a likely enemy of England, while unloading what had become a liablity. Louisiana became French under the treaty of San Ildefonso for 22 days, during which time the sale to the USA was finalized.

Rather like an international game of three-card-monte.

Like I said on the corruption thread - it comes down to hard cash. The Jews were of course prominent in the money lending field, the landowners of Haiti were among the business class who financed N (another similarity with Hit;ler), but the black slaves had nothing.

General Leclerc was quite competent, was known as the 'blonde Bonaparte', had seen much service, had served under Napoleon in the Italian campaigns, and had suffered his share of wounds in combat. His sister, Aimee, was Davout's second wife.

Napoleon chose him to lead the expedition because he trusted him and because of his demonstrated leadership and generalship qualities (these are not synonymous).

The pejorative term 'doofus' is quite inaccurate. Perhaps a quick look at Six might help solve the perception problem.

JC Herold maintains that Toussaint maintained slavery under a different name with himself as Dictator. He presents a powerful argument.

The British suffered heavy losses to sickness and disease as the French did in the campaigns in the Caribbean. Napoleon's Sea Soldiers by Rene Chartrand and The Age of Napoleon by the aforementioned Herold are most helpful.

My understanding is that Hatians enslaving Haitians began not with Toussaint, but with his successor, Henri Christophe, who conscripted hundreds of forced laborers to build his massive new palace.

As to the dockyard question, the French navy as a whole was a problem. Napoleon inherited a mess, corruption and inefficiency were rife, when becoming First Consul. While the ships built were arguably the best designed 'of all maritime nations' the officer corps had been gutted by the Revolution, as they were all aristocrats, and the navy's organization has been termed 'an anachronism.' It should also be remembered that the French navy had been one of the decisive elements in the War of the American Revolution. Without it, there would have been no Yorktown.

The officer corps thought defensively and were not the aggressive, driving captains that the Royal and United States navies produced. Repeated defeats by both enemies didn't help.

With the coming of the Revolution there was a mad scampering of officers to emigrate, their replacements were unskilled, incompetent, or illiterate, or all three combined. The dockyards and arsenals were a state of mad confusion-undoubtedly riots were better organized. The cannoniers matelots (naval gunners) were sent to fight on land and were lost, they being the only real military organization in the naval service.

Napoleon's arrival came with an appreciation for seapower, and with it his terrible abilities for seeing the problem almost immediately and reorganization. Initially, five military districts were organized around the great military ports, with more being organized later as the Empire grew. Naval prefects, appointed by Napoleon, headed each district with authority over all shipping, military and civilian, and were 'assisted' by gendarmerie of 'ports and arsenals' who had naval insignia on their buttons.

The navy was also organized into permanent crews and the naval artillery corps was reorganized and enlarged. The naval bases were known to be efficient and well run. The prefects were answerable to Napoleon and his auditors and inspectors, which encouraged virtue. The place to look for corruption is with the contractors or the dishonest public servant. As with the army, contractors such as Ouvrard were in it for the money, any way they could get it. The first place to start is Napoleon's Correspondence and you might want to check Rene Chartrand's Napoleon's Sea Soldiers just to be sure. To follow, if you can find a copy, Les Marins de la Republique et de l'Empire 1793-1815 might be helpful as would Historique de l'Artillerie de la Marine published by the Naval Minstry in 1889.

Sam,
Have you looked at Herold?

You mean Christopher Herrold?

Which book? I've got his bio of de Staêl, his survey book, Age of Napoleon, and until recently his "Mind of Napoleon," but I gave that away to a student last year.

I assume you're referring to that chapter on French colonialism that he has in the Age of Napoleon text?

Yes, Sam, J. Christopher Herold in The Age of Napoleon, pages 307-308. It's available in a smaller paperbak edition.

Yeah, I read that chapter every two years, actually, because I assign it to my students in the "Age of Napoleon" class.

I don't think Herold is saying that Toussaint instituted slavery. I just re-read those two pages, and Herold is explaining Toussaint's juggling act with the various political factions. I think Herold hits the nail right on the head: Toussaint was trying to figure out where all the other parties stood, and if possible, retain a mixed-race bourgeoisie on the island, and maybe even entice some emigree planters to return. That's the conclusion of W. Franklin Knight, in his work on the Haitian revolution, as well as the essays of Alejio Carpentier. It makes sense to me.

Real Haitian-on-Hatian slavery begins in with Henri Christophe. (Who, interestingly enough, adored Napoleon and dressed and posed in imitation of him.)

Perhaps if Toussaint had not been murdered by the French Haiti would not be the basket case it is today. Big if.

Toussaint wasn't murdered-he died in prison. However, if there is information that someone actually killed him, I'd certainly like to see it.

Having some experience with Haitians in large numbers, probably the only type of government that will work is a strong, centralized one that isn't corrupt-good luck. There is no middle class in Haiti-you have poor and then the upper class and the poor are primitive in the extreme. The upper class doesn't give a flip for the peons. Nice folks one on one, and I have dealt with them on that level, but when there is a large group of them they can be trouble.

A very heavy hand would be necessary to clean up that mess-but a fair one. What is necessary to do would not be to the UN's liking-or probably anyone else's. Hence, the poor will wallow in filth, ignorance, and poverty. It's a real shame.

If we are on the subject of Henri Christophe, I've always thought The Emperor Jones would make a good gaming scenario.

Toussaint died in prison in a cold country. Perhaps no poison or weapon was used, but he was captured by treachery and mistreated. I'd say that's tantamount to murder.

I think there's a slim chance that had he lived, Haiti might have developed a more functional society.

An excellent series of books which I recently scored cheaply on the Edward R. Hamilton bookseller list are the Robert Gardiner series. Five books that deal with the naval wars chronilogically, with one edition specifically on the War of 1812 at sea. He deals extensively with the state of the various navies at the outbreak of the Napoleonic Wars and the philosophies driving them. It very frustrating to read account after account of French ships battering their counterpart, only to haul off because there is always another English frigate just over the horizon. There are several instances of an initial victory of a French frigate over their British counterpart, only to be forced to strike when another ship arrives and they are too damaged to escape. And in the end, only the last prize matters.

He later theorized that was the reason in the first US vs. British frigate engagements the Americans drew off to repair rigging before coming in to finish off their opponent.

Michael Mathews

Gardiner's books are outstanding and I would recommend them to anyone who has an interest in the naval warfare of the period.

Regarding Toussaint and his enslavement of blacks, once he had beaten his enemies he forced the slaves to work on the plantations, this was understandably not very popular. But basically it was an economic neccessity as it was the only way that enough money could be produced to develop Haiti.
Before the revolt it was allegedly the richest place on earth and would be ripe for reconquest unless strong defences and an economy developed. Under Toussaint this worked as he had the same sort of stature as Nelson Mandela unfortunately his proteges Christophe and Dessalines although undoubtedly good soldiers, were more Thabo Mbeki-like

Looks like this thread is overdue its 4-yearly revival!

Blame me, I'd just ploughed my way through 'Le Crime de Napoléon' by CLaude Ribbe. (Only to find out that it was now avaliable in an English translation – Napoleon's Crime.)

The premise of the book is the a study of the Haitian campaign following Napoleon's reintroduction of slavery within the French Empire. Not exactly enlightenment thinking after all.

Ribbe make some interesting and contriversal claims. In simple terms, Napoleon ordered the killing of as many blacks as possible in Haiti and Guadeloupe to be replaced by new, docile slaves from Africa.

Ribbe then introduces the idea that using sulphur dioxide gas instead of Ziclon Napoleons troops employed gas chambers on their slave captives. Ribbe claims that 100,000 slaves were murdered.

Needless to say this book has had a somewhat mixed reception.

To be honest I found it a difficult read stylistically and have just sent it on to my uncle who devours any book in French.