Question

Human rights versus property rights. That argument goes on today as, for example, we debate how closely to regulate coal mining. Is it best to let owners set rules, which is likely to give all of us cheaper coal, or to have the government set standards, which is more likely to protect workers and the environment? In France, one side argued that slaves must be freed. The other said that to change anything in the sugar islands would invite slave revolts, help France's rivals, and thus hurt the nation. In the new United States, the Revolution gave white men with property a sense of freedom, while Africans were still enslaved. In England, abolitionists spoke up for Africans, but kings and lords still ruled. In France, revolutionaries were turning against their own nobles but remained uncertain about what this meant for enslaved Africans on their sugar islands. The Age of Revolutions was pressing ideas of freedom against the rights of property, and no one was sure where these great clashes would lead. In revolutionary France, the defenders of slaves began to win the argument against the advocates of property rights. By fall of 1791, the French passed a law making free blacks and people of mixed background on the sugar islands legally equal to all other Frenchmen. – Sugar Changed the World, Marc Aronson and Marina Budhos How do the authors use French history to support the claim that the global hunger for slave-grown sugar led to the end of slavery?

Answer 1

The authors use French history to support the claim that the global hunger for slave-grown sugar led to the end of slavery by highlighting the ideological shift that occurred during the Age of Revolutions, particularly in France. They describe a pivotal moment in the French Revolution when the defenders of slaves began to gain ground in the argument against the advocates of property rights.

In revolutionary France, the debate revolved around the rights of property owners who profited from sugar plantations and the advocates for the abolition of slavery. The argument against freeing slaves often centered on concerns that it could lead to slave revolts, harm France's economic interests, or benefit its rivals. This illustrates the conflict between property rights and the moral imperative of human rights.

However, as the French Revolution progressed, there was a shift in sentiment. The authors mention that by the fall of 1791, the French passed a law that granted free blacks and people of mixed background on the sugar islands legal equality with all other French citizens. This legislative change signifies a turning point where the defenders of human rights and abolitionists began to gain the upper hand in the debate, challenging the entrenched property rights of plantation owners.

By using this historical context, the authors demonstrate how the global demand for slave-grown sugar and the resulting debates over property rights versus human rights played a significant role in shaping the trajectory toward the eventual end of slavery. The French example illustrates that as revolutionary ideals of freedom and equality gained momentum, they ultimately led to the recognition of the equal rights of individuals regardless of their race or background, contributing to the broader movement against slavery.