The French Slave Trade

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

That this article was written by Marx is proved by his letter to Engels of November 2, 1858, in which Marx said that he had written about “the Portuguese affair” (see present edition, Vol. 40).

Informing Engels of the themes he dealt with in his work for the New-York Daily Tribune at that period (see the letter of November 29, 1858),

Marx mentioned once more that he had written about “England’s sham provocation in the Portuguese affair” (see present edition, Vol. 40). Marx touches on this subject in an earlier article, “The War Prospect in France” (this volume, pp. 261-66).

The editors of the New-York Daily Tribune probably cut out some passages of the article and distorted its concluding part by omitting criticism of the British colonial policy (see footnote on p. 623 of this volume). Since this article has been heavily edited it is given here in the Appendices.

It is a little odd, not to say a little suspicious, that all the recent movements in defense of the maritime rights of nations have been made, or at least have the appearance of having been made, in the interest of the African slave-trade. Such was the unfortunate color of the zealous efforts of Mr. Cass—both those which he made when Embassador to France, as well as his more recent labors—to protect slavers sailing under the American flag from search and seizure by British cruisers; and such is the late alleged vindication by Napoleon III of the rights of national vessels not to be interrupted by the authorities of any other nation, within whose waters they may happen to be in the pursuit of that traffic. For, as we understand it, the ground taken by the Emperor of the French in the case of the Charles et Georges goes that full length. He does not deny the jurisdiction of Portugal over that portion of the African coast whence the cargo of pretended voluntary emigrants was obtained, nor over the harbor in which the vessel was seized. What he denies is, that these people, being embarked, no matter by what means, on board a vessel sailing under a special Imperial commission, Portugal had no longer any right to inquire whether the people on board, though professedly taken from Portuguese territory, were kidnapped or not; and that, even granting that they were kidnapped, Portugal had no other remedy except a representation to and a reclamation upon the French Government.

In putting his case upon this ground, the Emperor places in a new light the scheme for supplying the French colonies with African labor. That scheme no longer appears as a mere private speculation on the part of M. Regis and the French planters; it would seem to have been a direct Government operation, the enterprise being undertaken not merely with the bare assent and permission of the French Emperor, but being in fact adopted as his own and carried on by vessels specially commissioned, so as to be clothed, in the view of the Emperor, with a national character sufficient to protect them against any direct responsibility to the authorities of any country into whose waters the pursuit of their traffic might carry them.

Having thus recognized this scheme as a Government operation, and made himself directly and personally responsible, not only for the general character of the scheme, but for all the details of its execution, the Emperor has certainly acted with judgment and good sense in appointing a commission to inquire personally on the coast of Africa into the real character of the business in which the French Government has thus engaged itself. The Portuguese Government, considered by itself alone, is not a formidable adversary. The Emperor has already, with the strong hand, wrested away from that feeble Power the vessel they had seized, upon a charge of kidnapping and slave-trading. But Portugal not only possesses the common privilege of the weak, that of protest and complaint, which in this case she has not hesitated to exercise—she has in England, not merely a sympathizing friend, but an ally bound by treaty to protect her, in case it can be made to appear that her rights have been invaded. Even allowing the doctrine of national maritime rights set up by the Emperor, and conceding as a matter of fact the national character with which he has undertaken to clothe the vessels engaged in the execution of the Regis contract, the Emperor feels, and rightly, that he never can stand justified in the eyes of the civilized world except by refuting the charge upon which the Portuguese Government based its proceedings, or else abandoning an enterprise, the true character of which has thus been detected and revealed. That a fair and impartial inquiry into the proceedings under the Regis contract will prove the whole speculation to have been, in the words of the Emperor addressed to his Colonial Minister, “nothing more than a disguised slave-trade,” can hardly admit of a doubt. The very circumstance of the numerous mutinies soon after the embarkation of these pretended free emigrants, would seem to be, in itself alone, sufficient to establish that fact. Nor, taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration, do we imagine that the appointment of this commission is merely for white-washing purposes. No doubt, the Commissioners will be apt to feel it a part of their duty to gloss over or veil from view some of the more revolting features of the transaction, but we are strongly inclined to think that the main object of the commission is to afford the Emperor an opportunity to retreat from an undertaking which not only exposes him to great obloquy, but which, in a mere mercantile point of view, has proved, we suspect, a decided failure.