🥧

They/them 🧡💛🤍🩵💙 Hun || 20yo

[m4nsch]

happy pride! remember that being a transgender is everything but fiction. there are so many real historical figures from every century about whose transgenderism we aren't even aware of

on this picture i drew Alexandr Andreevich Alexandrov - cavalry officer of the russian imperial army that participated in napoleonic wars. people persistently keep on misgendering mispronounsing deadnaming and calling him a crossdresser although alexandrov clearly stated that he didn't want to be called by his deadname and being treated like anything but a man. that's an interesting historical figure and i wanted to draw attention to his person. i can't tell everything about him in only one post so i recomend you to read about alexandrov by yourself

also be proud of yourself and remember that you're valid! 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️

[miablurry]

Anatomical history | 2: Georges Couthon

It is still heavily debated on which exact illnes or injury caused Georges Couthon's paralysis. However there are two main theories that are accepted in historical fields, both of which are Myelitis and MS (or as more know: Multiple Sclerosis). Another theory that was heavily used even in 1700s was tuberculosis paralysis (Pott's paraplegia, but that theory doesn't have enough historical or medical evidence to back it up.)

Couthon's Myelitis caused an inflammation in his spinal cord. Such inflammation is what is thought to have caused his issues with pain and paralysis. It is not entirely known whether his inflamation was in his Thoric spine or in his lumbar spine as it is not correctly recorded in any resources whether his lower back was paralyzed with his legs. But it is believed to be mostly in his lumbar back, most likely in the spinal cord near the L1 vertebrae.

His paralysis also caused pain in his thighs and legs (AKA he still had sensation in the affected areas but couldnt use them. Which is a huge symptom of Myelitis)

In the end the condition forced him to use a cane, then two crutches, and then by 1793 he was completely wherlchair-bound.

His MS didn't cause cause the "usual" symptoms of visual impairments or mood problems, so that theory is almost completely supported only on the grounds of his muscle atrophy and spinal weakness before his paralysis.

Additionally:

Georges Couthon has always had some issues with either his legs or joints as it is recorded that even in childhood he had pains in those places.

[citizentaleo]

[lemurious]

Here’s to the ones who deliberately step outside the ranks and ignore categorization. Here’s to the revolutionary who contradicts Newton based on experimental evidence on the diffraction of light; to the journalist who describes eye diseases; to the doctor who advocates for prison reforms; to the lifelong skeptic of lofty pretensions who is turned into a symbol before his blood has clotted.

Here’s to refusing to turn away from the fear and the violence and the treachery and the war; to claiming the guard-post, though armed with words alone. Perhaps, just enough to protect the shared ideals. Perhaps, too much. Perhaps, insufficient; history may have the answer, but how could one know that, when one is in the process of making the history happen?

Here’s to hard decisions made unflinchingly; to cutting through the rush of a new republic like a soldier escaping a siege, decisively and with full understanding of the inevitable defeat; and to words that continue to ring true as we offer complacency to the twin hydras of poverty and injustice in hope that it will be enough to escape them, just this time.

"...que la société humaine y prenne garde, on ne tuera Marat qu’en tuant la misère ; Charlotte Corday n’a rien fait ; tant qu’il y aura des misérables, il y aura sur l’horizon un nuage qui peut devenir un fantôme, et un fantôme qui peut devenir Marat." - Victor Hugo

Happy birthday, Marat.

(*engraving is from the British Museum collection)

[cheeri1yfrancis]

frev as tumblr textposts pt.1/?

[pessimisticpie]

[horsemotifs]

joining the war on pigeons on the side of pigeons

[citizentaleo]

Joyeux anniversaire, Robespierre 🍊🐦🎂

[janellefeng]

Joyeux anniversaire, Robespierre. Wherever you are, thank you again and here's to another year.

*The biography is called Robespierre: A Revolutionary Life. For the Introduction's title, Peter Mcphee was in fact referencing another quote by another biographer (Janet Malcolm) for a different biography.

[edoutft]

Happy bday icon!! (Its not may 6 anymore in France but it's still in other parts of the world therefore I'm not late)

[theorahsart]

Happy Birthday to this visionary day dreamer~

[aramistinguette]

Joyeux anniversaire Robespierre!

idk which version I like the most so I'm posting both 🦆

[armotar]

loose doodles of doctor Marat and citizen Saint Just

[lemurious]

We were there when –

A phrase to start a story. A history, a reminiscence. A choice, often. A survival, by definition.

You were there when. When there were not enough hours in the day and not enough ink in the entire Convention to rush the grain to Paris; and people were hungry, and people were worried, in the middle of a war, two fronts, three fronts, you were there when – and what did you do?

I fed the people, you could say. I was there to feed the people.

You were there in that mad, exhausted spring when hope itself seemed to have fallen beyond the horizon, when accusations were falling like apple blossoms and treacheries sprouting like leaves, when you were asked to sign a decree,

I am here to feed the people, and not to kill revolutionaries, you said.

(You will not sign another decree either, in Thermidor; you will choose silence again; after all, the people were still one missed delivery of grain away from starvation. We will never know if that was the explanation you gave yourself; we will never know if you wished you’d have chosen differently, condemned yourself, spared yourself from surviving.)

We will wonder if you smiled when you heard the slogan, years later, hungry, empty, broken years later; bread and the Constitution, if you thought it as something that had been yours, as something you’d been trying to give the people for years. You were there when –

and once again, you have survived, a veteran of that forgotten army that had been wielding pens, not swords, watching the dawn rise outside their windows, over the endless stacks of orders and accounts, laws and reforms, trying to keep your republic together until a republic was no more.

You did not live to see the next one, and that perhaps was the greatest tragedy of all. But such is the cost of civil service; forging what future we may, one line and one sleepless night and one inevitable defeat at a time; there is little honor and remembrance in it; but the people can only hope to build a better republic if they are alive, if they had been fed, if they have someone else’s legacy to follow, and we are here now, because you were there then.

Happy birthday, Lindet.

[leathernlace00]

[ic-napology]

hello gorgeous ~~ i need your help as a joséphine specialist, do you have reliable sources to answer in an educational way to people using the "napoléon reestablished slavery to please joséphine because her family used to own slaves" stance ?

Hi Mathilde! Thanks for asking (and for calling me for gorgeous🤭)

So, my main source - especially for the most controversial topics around Joséphine - is always Pierre Branda's biography, Joséphine - le paradoxe du cygne. He basically states that she never actively encouraged Napoleon towards the reinstatement of slavery and that there's no written evidence of any involvement by her in the matter.

But even better, here on Tumblr @nesiacha is a goldmine of sources and historiographic debates, especially on the subject of Caraibbean history during the Revolution and Napoleonic era - among numerous topics. They know about Joséphine and her relationship with her homeland very well, so they'll complete this answer.

Here are my personal thoughs on the matter, whom I invite people to discuss upon as always, I'll be glad to hear yours too.

It's well known how Napoleon hated women being active and outspoken in political matters, and he certainly didn't encourage his own wife to be so. And he himself would NEVER take political decisions based on such "irrational" things such as feelings - for a woman, of all things. Being a mysoginist and emotionally constipated were the undersides of the intention of being the as rational and level-headed as possible in a leading role, I guess.

I think that behind the decision of reinstating slavery there was rather a comparison with the British Empire, whose economy thrived thanks to colonialism like nobody else. He couldn't cut them from their colonies in West Asia during the campaign of Egypt, so he would try to compete with them on the economic level. So a very pragmatic reason. Not that it makes the decision of reinstating slavery better.

(Also Napoleonic historians like Thierry Lentz debated that Napoleon didn't actually do anything that wasn't happening already as the Revolution had never managed to impose the abolition de facto, but I suspect that it's something said with the intention of making Napoleon look better than reality rather than being balanced and seeking the truth. Fondation Napoléon is very good with sources but can sometimes be a little biased. Here's Branda's, Lentz' and Lheureux-Prévot essay on the subject).

I don't remember if he did it before or making peace with England at Amiens, but they were rivalries no matter the good relationship (which was fragile anyway as we know).

On the other hand, I don't buy Joséphine's neutrality and passivity either. Just like in the matter of her alleged extramarital affairs, a lack of primary sources doesn't automatically deny that something happens. We may lack correspondance proving her involvement on the reinstatement of slavery, but she could still have talked in private with Caraibbean grand blancs and Napoleon.

Branda's biography itself is all about proving how Joséphine had much more agency and business skills than pop culture credits her for. During Thermidor, Thérèse Tallien and her moved mountains in order to save individual friends and friends's friends. And during the Empire she continued to serve as PR between Napoleon and the world.

We also know how partial she was when it came to support friends. Being both a survivor and a woman (=socially underprivileged) taught her not to hold on political ideals but rather on relying on personal relationships, which also came from her Martinican background. Sadly, that also means that she was friends with many other slave owners who had the best interest in maintaining slavery.

So believing that she may have influenced Napoleon in some way the decision of reinstating slavery is the opposite of nonsense.

Hope it's a good answer, I did my best even if I'm not the most expert when it comes to topic of slavery in the Carribean and Napoleon, so I would love to be checked🙏 I loved writing this anyway, bisous✨️

[nesiacha]

Hello, and thank you for mentioning my pseudo. However, to be honest, even I am not completely knowledgeable about this topic.

I will try to respond point by point. First, regarding Napoleon and women in politics, I think he had the same issue as Chaumette: surrounding himself with intelligent political women while being quite machistes. Indeed, on Napoleon’s side we have Joséphine de Beauharnais, Caroline Murat, and Elisa Baciocchi, who were effective in political roles. Similarly, in the circle of our dear Chaumette, we find women expressing interesting political opinions, such as his wife Henriette Simonin, Marie-Angélique Lequesne (widow Ronsin, later Madame Turreau), who regularly attended the Cordeliers Club, Sophie Momoro, and others.

Yes, these men, who did everything to restrict women’s political rights, were nevertheless surrounded by strong and politically intelligent women—a rare point of commonality between them. Quite ironic when you think about it.

Let us move on to Joséphine de Beauharnais. The problem is that there are two equally false clichés concerning her and slavery.

The first cliché: did Napoleon restore slavery to please Joséphine? There is no document proving that Joséphine de Beauharnais supported or opposed the restoration of slavery ,not a single letter supporting this claim. The real responsibility for this horrific decision (which was also a long-term disaster for France) lies with Napoleon Bonaparte and his advisors. This “black legend” should be rejected. Yes, she was a political figure and she greatly helped her husband’s career, but she bears no responsibility for this decision, especially since he alone had the power to make it.

Unfortunately, there is another cliché (though less widespread): that Joséphine was a notable abolitionist because she supposedly welcomed the children of Toussaint Louverture (If I'm not mistaken). This is just as false. If Joséphine opposed something, she did not hesitate to say so. Moreover, it is a fact that her mother benefited greatly from this terrible system. The idea that Joséphine may have helped her relatives in ways that were morally questionable within this system is, sadly, a plausible hypothesis—not in the establishment of slavery, but in its “management” on behalf of her family.

The Musée National website, in the article “Rompre avec un silence: Joséphine et l’esclavage” (Musée national des châteaux de Malmaison et de Bois-Préau) you can see the site here : Rompre avec un silence : Joséphine et l’esclavage | Musée national des châteaux de Malmaison et de Bois - Préau , describes Joséphine de Beauharnais’s position on slavery better than anyone, in my opinion.

Here is a first excerpt from that site:

“It is not impossible, however, that Joséphine used her influence—very limited—over the First Consul in the conduct of affairs in Saint-Domingue, in so far as her children, Eugène and Hortense, had inherited from their father, Alexandre de Beauharnais, plantations located in the plain of Léogâne. As the manager of her minor children’s property, Madame Bonaparte maintained business relations with Toussaint Louverture, who handled her interests in the French part of the ‘Pearl of the Antilles’ before the definitive loss of the colony, which declared its independence on January 1, 1804.

The numerous enslaved people owned by the Tascher de La Pagerie family constituted the main capital of their sugar plantation in Trois-Îlets. Thus, in June 1807, the inventory following the death of Madame de La Pagerie, the Empress’s mother—referred to under the Empire as ‘Auguste Madame’—listed 123 enslaved individuals, estimated together at 267,300 livres, nearly half the total value of the estate (580,845 livres) left to her only daughter. In 1814, these same enslaved individuals still appeared in Joséphine’s estate. They were then transferred, after the division of her property between her two heirs, to her son Prince Eugène, and after his death in 1824, to his six children, the Leuchtenberg family. These heirs also received, in 1828, their share of the compensation paid by the government of Charles X to former colonists of Saint-Domingue, calculated in part on the number of enslaved people each could prove to have once owned.”

I do not know whether all of this is entirely accurate, but far be it from me to portray Eugène and Hortense as slave owners—there is no evidence of that. Please do not make me say what I did not say; they absolutely were not.

There were also people considered “of color” in Joséphine de Beauharnais’s entourage who followed her to Paris, the first being Euphémie, known as “Mimie,” to whom she was close. According to the same source, others accompanied her:

“Other Black individuals, known only by their first names, appear like fleeting shadows, reflecting their invisible status: Joseph, the Empress’s ‘courier,’ who in April 1812 married Mlle Hatté at Malmaison, daughter of the Swiss caretaker of the Château de Bois-Préau; and also Madame Malvina, described as a ‘Black woman,’ whose existence is reduced to modest personal expenses recorded in the accounts of the Empress’s private treasury.”

It is also interesting to find, on the same site, documents of manumission carried out by Joséphine’s mother, which I encourage everyone to read. Here is one example:

Letter from the Colonial Prefect to the Minister of the Navy and the Colonies, Saint-Pierre, 13 May 1806 (FR ANOM COL C8A 114 F° 30)

Monseigneur,

I had no prior knowledge of the requests for manumission that gave rise to Your Excellency’s dispatch of 12 Vendémiaire, Year 14, no. 2.

In the first days of this month, Monsieur Sorin, secretary of the government, brought to the prefecture’s office three requests for freedom: two were from Madame de La Pagerie, mother of Her Majesty the Empress, and one from the Misses Hurault.

The Captain General had endorsed them with an instruction to communicate them to the Attorney General and the Dean. There is no longer a Dean of the Council; under our current laws, this corresponds to a President of the Court of Appeal. However, I did not dwell on this wording error. I verified that in the past such communications were customary, even though no ordinance explicitly mentioned them. Today, however, it is among our governing principles to keep the courts entirely separate from administrative functions. Moreover, since one of the three principal magistrates of the colonies now heads the judiciary, and by a provision of Your Excellency’s dispatch of 12 Vendémiaire, the Chief Justice or Commissioner of Justice participates in acts of manumission, I concluded that the custom of involving the Attorney General and the Dean should be considered abolished, especially as no formal law had ever prescribed it.

On the other hand, the large number of freed people on this island has always seemed to me a dangerous flaw in the colonial system, and I had resolved, if possible, to leave this prefecture without having to reproach myself for worsening this situation. Accordingly, I had firmly resisted repeated requests from Madame Grandprés, wife of the Chief Justice, who wished to grant freedom to several elderly enslaved women as a token of gratitude.

It was in this context that the three requests reached me.

I did not hesitate to immediately send the deeds of manumission for the first two—signed by myself—to the Chief Justice, asking him, after signing them in turn, to deliver them to Madame de La Pagerie, who is staying with the Captain General in Fort-de-France. I included a clause exempting them from any manumission tax. I believed that such consideration was owed to Madame de La Pagerie. I had also heard that one of her enslaved women was a milk-sister of Her Majesty the Empress.

As for the third request, submitted by the Misses Hurault, I postponed it for the moment due to the situation in which I found myself.

I explained my reasoning to the Chief Justice: “My stay in this country may not be long. If it is prolonged, I will still have time to reconsider this postponement.” Such was my reasoning.

Two days later, Madame de La Pagerie informed me through the Chief Justice that she took a personal interest in the third request.

This verbal report was sufficient. I immediately wrote, on the 6th of the current month, to Madame de La Pagerie to assure her that I would set aside my principles and hasten to comply with her wishes. However, since the matter did not concern her directly and personally, I considered it my duty to require a manumission tax in accordance with the ordinances and your instructions. The mulatto woman in question was forty years old and had a male child aged eight. I set the tax at 3,000 francs in French currency.

Madame de La Pagerie was staying with the Captain General, where she is surrounded by a crowd to whom he, his family, and his entourage set the example of commenting—very freely and quite favorably—on my words and actions. They succeeded in portraying my conduct negatively in her eyes, leading her to perceive it as improper treatment toward her, even toward Her Majesty the Empress, her daughter. As a result, I received an ill-tempered letter expressing dissatisfaction and containing threats, very unpleasant for me and quite undeserved.

It was then, Monseigneur, that I learned for the first time: 1° that Madame de La Pagerie had requested these three manumissions from her august daughter, Her Majesty the Empress; 2° that Her Majesty the Empress had personally intervened in the matter and had written to her mother about it; 3° finally, that the third manumission had been arranged by Madame Villaret for the mulatto woman Rosalie and her son, as a reward for the care she had provided to Madame Villaret over the past three or four years.

And yet, the Captain General had the unworthy audacity to accuse me of creating difficulties regarding these manumissions because of the interest that he and his wife took in them.

I give you my word of honor that I was entirely unaware of this, and that without this incident, I would still not even know that a certain Rosalie existed in their household.

Nevertheless, I was deeply distressed to see that such serious trouble had been created for me in a matter where my conduct had been so straightforward and innocent.

I replied to Madame de La Pagerie by sending her the third manumission, identical to the other two.

It is impossible to find, anywhere under heaven, a more noble soul or greater kindness than that of Madame de La Pagerie. She inspires universal respect and asks so little that one feels fortunate to be able to grant her wishes. She has consistently observed how deeply I share these sentiments and how much I am committed to demonstrating, through her, my devotion to Their Majesties. I must also give thanks to her superior judgment, for although she is constantly surrounded by individuals intent on undermining me, she has largely resisted their insinuations. She was even kind enough to repair, through a letter she honored my wife with yesterday, the distress caused by the one I had previously received.

You require us to report immediately any manumissions we authorize. I therefore hasten to fulfill this duty.

It is possible that these cases may be used as a pretext to slander me from afar, just as attempts have been made locally. For this reason, Monseigneur, it was important for me to inform you in advance through the explanations I have provided. You will be able to verify them easily by questioning the Chief Justice himself, who will likely be the bearer of this letter.

List of the individuals granted freedom mentioned in this dispatch:

1° At the request and by the grant of freedom from Madame de La Pagerie, mother of Her Majesty the Empress:

Rosette, mulatto woman, aged 42;

Adélaïde, quadroon woman, aged 35;

2° At the request of Madame de La Pagerie and by the grant of freedom from the Misses Ursule and Marianne Hurault:

Rosalie, mulatto woman, aged 40;

Joseph Bernard, her son, aged 8".

Unfortunately, we must not forget that Joséphine’s mother shared the same cruelties as other slave owners. The case of the execution by burning of her enslaved woman Émilie—whose life I discussed here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/795013242335444992/a-delicate-question-the-responsibility-of?source=share —shows that she bears some responsibility in this matter. We do not even know whether Émilie was truly guilty, as the testimonies seem highly questionable to me, and the context of the time tended to accuse every person of color of being a potential poisoner, especially if they were enslaved domestic workers. Even if Émilie was indeed in such a position, the fact that she complained about her mistress’s character suggests a plausible hypothesis: that she was subjected to severe mistreatment—which, sadly, would not be surprising given the system of slavery.

Joséphine herself bears no responsibility in this case. However, I find it difficult to believe that she was not informed about it. It would likely have been too late to request clemency for Émilie, but why is there no record of her pleading on behalf of Émilie’s family? Joséphine intervened with Napoleon on behalf of people who were far more politically culpable than this woman—yet here, there is nothing.

She helped many people. But her silence in this case, given her influence and political engagement, does her no credit.

Even if I do not agree with everything the site says, I think it formulates Joséphine’s position on slavery quite well: “Joséphine, with regard to the question of slavery—which was part of her family environment—never publicly expressed the slightest opinion suggesting that this system, on which the economy of the islands depended and from which the Tascher de La Pagerie family and their circle fully benefited, was morally or humanly condemnable. She neither disapproved nor justified it; she simply accepted it as a given, relying on tradition, which she did not see as her place to challenge.”

So, she had no influence on the reestablishment of slavery, but she accommodated herself to it.

Now let us turn to the person responsible for the restoration of slavery: Napoleon.

As can be seen in the way he divorced Joséphine de Beauharnais, he did not hesitate at times to violate the law (one rule for others, another for himself).

In fact, in Guadeloupe, slavery was illegally reimposed by Richepanse (under Bonaparte’s orders). It was only promulgated locally in 1803, according to the jurist Auguste Lacour (although Lacour does not provide sources to confirm this).

Here is an excerpt from a text by Jean-François Niort, Lecturer in the History of Law and Institutions at the University of the Antilles and Guyana, and Jérémy Richard, a student in the same field:

“Basically, it is clear that, like the law of 30 Floréal, the decree of 27 Messidor contradicts the rights of man in general, as well as, more specifically, the laws of 1794 and 1798. However, even if the Declaration of 1789 is no longer legally in force, the Constitution of Year VIII had been presented by the consuls as being based on the ‘sacred rights’ of property, equality, and liberty, thus ending the Revolution by fixing it upon the principles that had initiated it.

The Consular Constitution certainly placed the colonies under a special legal regime (Article 91: ‘The regime of the French colonies is determined by special laws’), but a priori not in a way that could justify such a breach of the principles of the Revolution and the Rights of Man, because laws—even ‘special’ ones—must respect the Constitution, or at least its spirit.

Yet these rights to liberty and equality were set aside by Bonaparte and the colonial lobby in the name of the security and prosperity of the colonies, political and geopolitical interests, and more fundamentally, the supposed incapacity of Black people for liberty and equality. However, none of these arguments are legal.

Beyond philosophical condemnation, the law of May 20 and especially the decree of July 16 are legally open to criticism. This represents a clear reaction not only against revolutionary principles but against revolutionary laws themselves.

In terms of form, the law of 30 Floréal was duly voted, promulgated, and published. However, the same is not true of the decree of 27 Messidor, which is irregular. The first legal issue is whether Bonaparte even had the authority to make such a decision. A priori, the answer is no.

The Constitution provided for special laws governing the colonies—not simple regulatory measures. Moreover, while the laws of 1794 and 1798 could be considered repealed by the law of May 20 in certain colonies, this was not the case for others such as Guadeloupe. Therefore, those revolutionary laws theoretically remained in force there, and a simple decree could not repeal them.

Bonaparte and his advisers were aware of this legal difficulty and attempted to resolve it. One option was to use a senatus-consultum, but this was abandoned. Another was to rely on Article 4 of the law of May 20, which delegated authority to the First Consul. However, this delegation itself was likely unconstitutional.

The government rejected the only fully legal solution: passing a law. This reveals both embarrassment and caution.

The issue of publication is also revealing. The decree of 27 Messidor was not published in the Bulletin of Laws, and Bonaparte specified that it should only be communicated to the Minister of Colonies. This suggests an attempt to keep the measure secret and reflects awareness of its weak legal basis.

This lack of publication further undermines its legality and demonstrates arbitrariness and contempt for the rule of law typical of the most extreme forms of colonialism. It also explains why this text was ‘forgotten’ for so long.”

Furthermore, from an economic perspective, this policy was pointless. Saint-Domingue was no longer prosperous. Leclerc himself noted that the resources provided by Bonaparte were insufficient, as Bonaparte believed that “war must pay for war,” which shows a clear disconnect from reality on these.

The reestablishment of slavery was also a major strategic mistake. It contributed directly to the loss of Saint-Domingue, as Bonaparte greatly underestimated both the mindset of formerly enslaved people and the strength of their leaders (such as the Bélair couple and Dessalines). He should have known that extreme repression only fuels further rebellion.

Moreover, this policy cost him many promising officers, such as Delgrès, Dumas and others. It also alienated groups of formerly enslaved fighters who had previously fought against the British using guerrilla tactics. One example is their victory at the Battle of Rabot in 1795, with the support of Governor Victor Hugues (one of the symbolic figures associated with this movement was Flore Bois Gaillard).

Ultimately, the decision to restore slavery benefited no one.

As for Lentz and Branda, they have written very good historical articles, particularly on Saint-Domingue, but I disagree with them on certain points (this is a subjective matter they are very good historians whose work should be read.). I sometimes feel that they attempt to downplay the destruction caused by Bonaparte in the restoration of slavery by emphasizing atrocities on both sides. Yes, that is true—but the brutality came primarily from the French side, as I have already explained here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/758502228409614336/here-we-come-about-a-shocking-act-by-french-army?source=share

Honestly, even some of the worst representatives-on-mission of Year II, such as Fréron, seem mild compared to what was done by Leclerc, Rochambeau, Lacrosse, and others.

In my opinion, one of the best historians on this subject is Frédéric Régent, whom I strongly recommend. One of his strengths is that he refuses to rely on a single scapegoat. He has explained that while Leclerc was indeed extremely brutal (his proposal to kill all Black people over the age of twelve in saint Domingue is horrifying), he was not alone—just as Rochambeau was not alone in his atrocities. It is similar to Turreau in the Vendée: Turreau was certainly brutal, but he was not the only one, even if his name is the one most remembered.

The problem with the subject of Napoleon’s restoration of slavery is that we often encounter two schools of thought that are both highly flawed and based on clichés.

The first one—ironically often promoted by the same people who condemn the revolutionaries of Year II—claims that Napoleon restored slavery simply because it was “of his time” (which is false), and fully justifies it as a form of necessary pragmatism. By that logic, Turreau’s “infernal columns” should also be seen as “necessary pragmatism.” Some even go further and argue that since slave owners had not been compensated, restoring slavery was therefore justified (yes, that argument actually exists).

The second school of thought goes to the opposite extreme: it compares Napoleon to Hitler on this issue ( stupid thing to do), claiming that he sought to create a “new man” by massacring as many Black people as possible—which is just as absurd.

There is a third, somewhat more serious school of thought that հարց whether Napoleon may have been racist. The problem is that the word “racist” did not exist at the time, even though the attitude itself certainly did. Personally, I do not think Napoleon acted primarily out of such attitudes, but rather out of opportunism.

But once again, Joséphine had no role in the restoration of slavery. Had she not been there, things would have unfolded exactly the same way. And she was not the one giving orders.

[vermutandherring]

Plot Twist:

My friend rekindled my obsession with Murat 😩

(...and I think I read @joachimnapoleon too obsessively)

POSES USED: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Lookbook in the next post~