The Problem of Liberty: Toussaint Louverture and Forced Labour in Saint-Domingue
Calyx Palmer (KCL)
The Haitian Revolution was fundamentally the most successful slave revolt in human history, the only uprising to ever ultimately lead to the creation of an entirely new nation state in which slavery was not just abolished, but was outright banned from ever being re-established on that land. Despite this, the relationship with forced labour throughout the Haitian Revolution was complicated. The history of forced labour on the island of Quisqueya starts with the arrival of Europeans, and its subsequent renaming to ‘Hispaniola’ in 1492. The indigenous Taíno and Ciboney peoples had lived on the island since 5000BCE, and at the beginning of the sixteenth century, their population was approximately 1.3 million, yet within just fifteen years, their population was closer to 60,000. This devastating decimation, caused by a combination of European cruelty, illness, and forced labour, ultimately led to the initial importation of 15,000 enslaved Black Africans in 1517 to replace the dwindling population of native workers as a forced labour workforce. Although the French colony of Saint-Domingue was not founded until 1697, forced labour and slavery were already crucial aspects of European settlement on the island, and were therefore of great importance to the colony from its outset. By the eighteenth century, Saint-Domingue had become the central hub of the French Caribbean, and not only was Cap Français “the most prosperous city in the French overseas empire”, but Saint-Domingue itself was “the most profitable slave colony in the world”. In trying to maintain or increase production, Saint-Domingue had to import enslaved people continually in order to make up for the high death rates: between 1764 and 1771 the average number of enslaved people imported per year was between 10,000 and 15,000; with production rates nearly doubling in the 1780s, it increased to 27,000 in 1786, and over 40,000 enslaved people were forcibly imported per year from 1787 onwards. Plantation slavery and the slave trade permeated every aspect of Saint-Domingue’s society, engraining within institutions and social mores alike the racial hierarchy necessary to maintain slavery. Neither free status nor wealth guaranteed equality of treatment, and they could not even ensure the rights promised to the free gens de couleur from the 1685 Code Noir onwards.
Post the abolition of slavery in Saint-Domingue in 1793, the formerly enslaved, now known as cultivateurs, resented and even abandoned their work on plantations. Toussaint Louverture, the primary leader of Haitian revolutionaries until 1802, had asked and cajoled the cultivateurs to return to work as nicely as possible, but agriculture was undeniably less productive than it had been, and as a result Saint-Domingue’s economy was suffering. In his 22nd March 1795 speech, known as “Toussaint L’Ouverture to his Brothers and Sisters in Varettes”, Louverture emphasised his loyalty to France as he castigated the citizens of Varettes for not living up to French ideals. In this speech, which opened with the address, “Brothers and Sisters”, Louverture declared, “You should never again forget the decrees of the National Convention. Its principles, its love for freedom, are invariable, and henceforth there can exist no possibility of the destruction of this sacred edifice”. In this opening declaration, Louverture explicitly tied the liberty that these citizens now enjoyed to the National Convention, and its continued existence. Implicit is the sense that if their rights were only secured as long as the National Convention stood, then in order to protect those rights, they must support and protect the institution of the National Convention as well. Having referred to the citizens he was confronting as his brothers and sisters, Louverture extended this familial metaphor by asserting that “the French are our brothers”, in an effort to create a wider shared sense of community, and again reinforcing the underlying basis of his argument: that they were all French citizens now, and therefore ought to help each other as citizens. Louverture openly declared his lack of interest in holding any of them accountable for previously siding with “the English, the Spanish, and the royalists [who] are ferocious beasts”, perhaps unsurprisingly given his own previous dalliance with the Spanish, but instead stated “you have returned to the Republic, and so the past is now forgotten”. Indeed, to return all those who had faltered to the fold was both a duty and a “sacred maxim”. While Louverture offered this amnesty easily, he did not suggest that returning to the role of republican citizen was easy or done without cost, instead laying out the duties and obligations of citizenship:
“Your duty is now to contribute with all your moral and physical might to strengthen your parish and to make flourish therein the principles of holy liberty.”
This ultimatum is followed by a list of articles, the most interesting of which is the sixth:
“Sixth Article – Work is necessary, it is a virtue. It is the general good of the state. Every lazy and errant man will be arrested to be punished by the law. But service is also conditional and will be paid a just wage.”
This sixth article gets at the heart of Louverture’s fundamental problem with legislating liberty - the difficulty of establishing a much needed and mandatory workforce, while maintaining the principle of freedom from slavery that was so fundamental to the Haitian Revolution. It clearly sets up the idea that a form of forced labour is a necessary obligation of citizenship, while still trying to clearly differentiate it from the institution of slavery. Louverture’s attempt to do this, especially difficult given he was predominantly requiring ex-slaves to return to the very same plantations on which they had been enslaved, was done through the lens of republicanism; to work was a civic duty, both moral and physical, and necessary to maintain the French Republic, which in turn was required to maintain their liberty from slavery.
This plea to French civic values had clearly not done enough, as on 12th October 1800, Louverture announced his somewhat controversial labour decree; controversial because it was deemed by many to be a return to forced labour. Louverture couched his policies in duty, declaring, “Citizens, it is necessary to consecrate all our moments to the prosperity of St Domingo, to the public tranquillity, and consequently to the welfare of our fellow citizens”. From the beginning of the decree, Louverture was once again overtly tying citizenship both to duty, and to the continued wellbeing and survival of all those on Saint-Domingue. This suggests that Louverture understood that his labour decree might face criticism, and was trying to pre-empt complaints by emphasising his belief that certain duties or roles could simultaneously be critical to the functioning of society, undesirable, and a necessary obligation of citizenship. This is further reinforced by his repeated comparison between the role of cultivateur and soldier: “whereas a soldier cannot leave his company, his battalion, or half-brigade, and enter into another without the severest punishment, unless provided with permission provided in due form by his Chief; cultivateurs are forbidden to quit their respective plantation without a lawful permission”. This comparison is pointed, as Louverture highlighted the severity with which deserting soldiers were treated. In doing so, he implied that the roles of cultivateur and soldier are equally valuable to the continued welfare of Saint-Domingue, a significant implication given the amount of warfare and conflict seen in Saint-Domingue since 1791.
Louverture went on to declare that the cultivateurs had been flouting these laws without punishment or consequence, despite its detrimental effect on Saint-Domingue. To Louverture, the cultivateurs who had left their plantations and refused to work were inherently “in a state of open hostility to society”, as he deemed their continued labour in the fields to be crucial to both agriculture and trade. While many cultivateurs argued that the ability to leave plantations or travel around Saint-Domingue at will was a key aspect of the liberty fought for since the initial slave uprising, Louverture viewed these actions as being justified by merely “the pretext of freedom”. To Louverture, the age-old debate between liberty and licence was the true cause of the cultivateurs’ problems. Although the actions and complaints of the cultivateurs were being done in the name of exercising liberty, the inherent selfishness of flouting the duties of citizenship meant that these actions could not be seen as those of true liberty. The articles which this labour decree imposed continue on to draw parallels between cultivateurs and soldiers, stating not only that cultivateurs must do “their duty in the same manner as soldiers” but that any who do “not perform with assiduity the duties required of them shall be arrested and punished as severely as soldiers deviating from their duty”. Indeed, Louverture’s labour decree did not merely compare cultivateurs to soldiers, he decreed that any cultivateurs found to disobey the labour decree would be forcibly drafted into the army, turning these errant cultivateurs directly into soldiers, making them eligible for court-martial. Louverture’s decree ends with the statement “[L]iberty cannot exist without industry”. This declaration seems to pre-empt the cultivateurs who could not and would not view being forced to stay and work on the very same plantation they had been enslaved upon as a form of liberty, regardless of changed conditions and financial compensation. Throughout this decree, Louverture was clearly arguing for the freedom of the state as taking precedence over the personal freedoms of the individual, clinging to his interpretation of the neo-classical republican model of liberty.
This increasing clash between Louverture’s idea of liberty as French citizenship and the liberty wanted by the other citizens of Saint-Domingue was further highlighted on 25th November 1801, with what Victor Schoelcher dubbed “Toussaint’s dictatorial proclamation”. This decree gave strict rules and regulations to be followed, criticising in depth the current “negligence” and “idleness” of the citizens of Saint-Domingue. Louverture declares that “as soon as a child can walk, he must be employed on the estates in some useful work, instead of being sent to the city” whereupon he would be taught immorality and licentiousness. This somewhat drastic order comes from Louverture’s belief that “it is necessary for the military commanders and magistrates to be inexorable toward this class of men [formerly enslaved]; it is necessary to compel them in spite of themselves, to be useful to a society that, without the strictest vigilance, they would plague”. This statement, with its echoing tones of the French justification of civilising missions, is particularly interesting given Louverture’s personal history as one born enslaved. His decree goes on to attempt to control all aspects of daily life, from labour to location, allowing very little room for freedom of movement or choice, and yet it is all done with the intention to “restore the prosperity of our country in order to assure the liberty of my fellow citizens”. Once again, we see the degree to which the failing economy weighed on Louverture, and his understanding that they would not be able to maintain their free society without returning, at least temporarily, to the plantation fields.
Crucial to understanding Louverture’s aims for Saint-Domingue is his 1801 Constitution, which, while never ratified, laid out his intentions for Saint-Domingue’s future. It also, inadvertently, led to the ultimate destruction of Saint-Domingue, and the creation of the independent nation state of Haiti. Throughout his constitution, Louverture focused on establishing a new social hierarchy and infrastructure, distinct from the deeply racialised one that had permeated Saint-Domingue before the outset of the Haitian Revolution. Most crucial to this, was Article 3:
“There cannot exist slaves on this territory; servitude is forever abolished, All men are born, live and die free and French.”
Article 3 not only permanently banned the existence of slaves and the institution of slavery, but it did so while reinforcing Saint-Domingue’s role as a French colony. The phrase “libres et français” once again highlights the crux of Louverture’s ideology at this point: the way in which liberty and French citizenship were inherently entangled. As such, we can see that Louverture’s 1801 Constitution was intended to reform Saint-Domingue into a free state, while still maintaining its position as a subservient colony within the French Empire. Fundamental to this state-building, and indeed Louverture’s definition and understanding of freedom, was the issue of agriculture. As previously discussed, Saint-Domingue was, prior to the revolution, an extremely productive and wealthy plantation colony, and as a result of that plantation slavery affected every aspect of life in Saint-Domingue, especially its economy. Even before the 1801 Constitution, Louverture had repeatedly reinforced the importance of the plantations to Saint-Domingue’s economy, and thus to its continued survival. This too was codified in the 1801 Constitution; despite the definitive declaration in Article 3 that “servitude is forever abolished”, Article 76 states that there was indeed still service owed:
“[The colony] proclaims that all citizens owe their service to the ground which nourishes them, or that saw them born, to the maintenance of liberty, equality, and property, every time the law calls on them to defend them.”
This article, the penultimate in the constitution, is very revealing about Louverture’s priorities. The tricolon “de la liberté, de l’égalité et de la propriété” echoes the calling words of the French Revolution, yet drops ‘fraternité’ in favour of ‘propriété’ to emphasise the importance of property; this economic twist on the revolutionary byword not only suggests that the financial importance of property had become engrained within Louverture’s ideology, but also that this would help to assuage fears of those who owned property in Saint-Domingue before the revolution, both grand blancs and wealthy gens de couleur, that they would lose all standing under the new system. Louverture’s differentiation between “servitude” and “services” is crucial, as it gets to the heart of his understanding of liberty. While servitude, meaning slavery, was permanently banned, each citizen had a duty and a responsibility to the nation state, to be fulfilled through acts of service. Although the precise nature of these services was not exhaustively defined within the constitution, it is clear from the debt owed “to the ground which nourishes” that manual labour in the fields was one such mandatory service.
Title VI of the 1801 Constitution focuses “On crops and commerce”, and outlines Louverture’s plan for agricultural legislation. Before the 1801 Constitution, Louverture had attempted to encourage cultivateurs back to work, and proposed labour laws on multiple occasions. His speeches and letters had likewise made it clear that he was deeply preoccupied with how to maintain Saint-Domingue, which had a plantation economy, without violating the liberty of the formerly enslaved. As previously discussed, Louverture proposed that working the fields was part of the mandatory duties of citizenship. This constitution highlights the importance that Louverture ascribed to agriculture, and the new framework which he believed would best support Saint-Domingue. Article 14, the first in this section, once again reinforces this: “The colony, essentially being agricultural, cannot suffer the least interruption in its work on its crops”. Again, we see that the maintenance of agriculture, and thus of Saint-Domingue’s economy, was of critical importance to Louverture. In stating this in such a manner, Louverture was once again reinforcing that Saint-Domingue’s very survival depended on its continued agricultural output, the same argument he used to motivate cultivateurs in his 1800 Labour decree.
In Articles 15 and 16, Louverture strongly tied the cultivateurs to the family model, declaring both that “each dwelling is a factory” and that “each cultivateur and worker is a member of the family”. This association between family and work was a factor in Louverture’s banning of divorce, argued Lorelle Semley, and was ultimately an attempt to keep property rights with the cultivateurs. Certainly while Louverture declared that “the proprietor of the land…is necessarily the father”, he also stated that despite this hierarchy each so-called family member “shares the income” from that land. This reframing of the land-owner as a paternal figure in a shared family hierarchy can also be seen as a way to further distance plantation labour as cultivateurs from plantation labour under slavery.
Article 16 continues with the assertion, “All changes of the dwelling on the part of the cultivateurs leads to the ruin of the crops”. This claim implies within it that freedom of movement for the cultivateurs was in itself a threat to Saint-Domingue’s security. It is unsurprising, therefore, that Louverture follows this with the intention to use the police to stop cultivateurs from moving domiciles, something that he describes as “a vice that is as harmful to the colony as it is contrary to the public order”. Despite the assurance that all workers would be paid, this legislation against freedom of movement is clearly a restriction on personal liberty that seems to follow the legacy of slavery. We are again seeing Louverture’s attempts to frame personal and individual liberties as licence, in order to maintain stricter control of the labour force. Keeping cultivateurs in the same location would ensure that they would predominantly have to work on the very same plantations on which they had been enslaved, and they would not be free to sell their labour to those offering higher wages or kinder treatment. Given Louverture’s reassurances regarding property, they would very likely be working on fields that were still owned by their own former owners. In order to maintain the agricultural economy of Saint-Domingue within this constitution, Louverture was in many ways proposing a remarkably similar labour system to that which had existed under slavery, with the caveats of financial compensation and an attempt to eliminate legal racial prejudice.
The expedition to Saint-Domingue by Charles Leclerc, Napoleon’s brother-in-law, was focused on trying to regain control in Saint-Domingue. To Napoleon, Louverture’s 1801 Constitution, despite its many caveats, return to forced labour, and emphasis on remaining within the French Empire, was an outrageous overstep. Louverture himself broke with France, predominantly upon recognising that the French forces intended to re-instate slavery, and was captured and imprisoned. Ultimately, the English had to intervene to help broker a deal to get the remaining French troops out of Saint-Domingue just prior to Haitian Independence in 1804. It was a dramatic and sudden shift from barely five years prior, when the people of Saint-Domingue had been proud citizens of France. While not everyone in the colony had been satisfied with the liberty they would receive as French citizens, it had seemed possible to reform from there, to change the situation and legislation of Saint-Domingue to fit its circumstances, rather than merely apply French rule without change. Louverture in particular had many ideas on how best to resolve the dual issues of labour and economy with liberty. Saint-Domingue remained both agriculturally and institutionally a plantation economy, and thus depended on the continued maintenance of its plantations to provide food and money to the island. In order to ensure the continuation of Saint-Domingue, Louverture was focused on the active duties of citizenship, and how that would provide the liberty of the state, if not the personal licence of the individual. His repeated attempts at drafting labour laws on this subject, culminating in the unused 1801 Constitution, show his difficulty in trying to balance an idea of liberty that would be more widely accepted, and his own argument that the liberty of the state was compatible with ongoing forced labour. Throughout his time with the revolutionary forces, Louverture’s leadership was not uncontested, and the accusation that he wanted to preserve the ancien regime has continued on into the wider historiography. His successor, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, may have successfully led Haiti to independence, but he too would ultimately fall as a result of discontent at his labour practices. While technically a new nation-state based on liberty, Haiti ultimately had the same institutional problems as Saint-Domingue: it was built on the bones of plantation slavery, and there was no easy way to encourage its workforce when the labourers themselves had been promised liberty.