The Haitian Revolution:

Although the eighteenth century was experiencing a widespread revolutionary situation, not all of it ended in full-blown, convulsing revolutions.6 But everywhere, the old order was being challenged. New ideas, new circumstances, and new peoples combined to create a portentously "turbulent time." Bryan Edwards, a sensitive English planter in Jamaica and articulate member of the British Parliament, lamented in a speech to that body in 1798 that "a spirit of subversion had gone forth that set at naught the wisdom of our ancestors and the lessons of experience." But if Edwards's lament was for the passing of his familiar, cruel, and constricted world of privileged planters and exploited slaves, it was certainly not the only view.

For the vast majority of workers on the far-flung plantations under the tropical sun of the Americas, the revolutionary situation presented an opportunity to change fundamentally their personal world, and maybe the world of others equally unfortunate. Nowhere was the contrast sharper than in the productive and extremely valuable French Caribbean colony of Saint Domingue between 1789 and 1804. The hundreds of thousands of African slaves and tens of thousands of legally defined free coloreds found the hallowed wisdom and experiential "lessons" of Bryan Edwards to be a despicably inconvenient barrier to their quest for individual and collective liberty. Their sentiments were motivated not only by a difference of geography and culture but also by a difference of race and condition.

Within fifteen turbulent years, a colony of coerced and exploited slaves successfully liberated themselves and radically and permanently transformed things. It was a unique case in the history of the Americas: a thorough revolution that resulted in a complete metamorphosis in the social, political, intellectual, and economic life of the colony. Socially, the lowest order of the society—slaves—became equal, free, and independent citizens. Politically, the new citizens created the second independent state in the Americas, the first independent non-European state to be carved out of the European universal empires anywhere. The Haitian model of state formation drove xenophobic fear into the hearts of all whites from Boston to Buenos Aires and shattered their complacency about the unquestioned superiority of their own political models. To Simón Bolívar, himself of partial African ancestry, it was the Euro-American model of revolution that was to be avoided by the Spanish-American states seeking their independence after 1810, and he suggested the best way was to free all slaves. Intellectually, the ex-colonists gave themselves a new name—Haitians—and defined all Haitians as "black," thereby giving a psychological blow to the emerging intellectual traditions of an increasingly racist Europe and North America that saw a hierarchical world eternally dominated by types representative of their own somatic images. In Haiti, all citizens were legally equal, regardless of color, race, or condition. Equally important, the example of Haiti convincingly refuted the ridiculous notion that still endures among some social scientists at the end of the twentieth century that slavery produced "social death" among slaves and persons of African descent. And in the economic sphere, the Haitians dramatically transformed their conventional tropical plantation agriculture, especially in the north, from a structure dominated by large estates (latifundia) into a society of minifundist, or small-scale, marginal self-sufficient producers, who reoriented away from export dependency toward an internal marketing system supplemented by a minor export sector. These changes, however, were not accomplished without extremely painful dislocations and severe long-term repercussions for both the state and the society.

If the origins of the revolution in Saint Domingue lie in the broader changes of the Atlantic world during the eighteenth century, the immediate precipitants must be found in the French Revolution. The symbiotic relationship between the two were extremely strong and will be discussed later, but both resulted from the construction of a newly integrated Atlantic community in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

The broader movements of empire building in the Atlantic world produced the dynamic catalyst for change that fomented political independence in the United States between 1776 and 1783. Even before that, ideas of the Enlightenment had agitated the political structures on both sides of the Atlantic, overtly challenging the traditional mercantilist notions of imperial administration and appropriating and legitimating the unorthodox free trading of previously defined interlopers and smugglers. The Enlightenment proposed a rational basis for reorganizing state, society, and nation. The leading thinkers promoted and popularized new ideas of individual and collective liberty, of political rights, and of class equality—and even, to a certain extent, of social democracy—that eventually included some unconventional thoughts about slavery. But their concepts of the state remained rooted in the traditional western European social experience, which did not accommodate itself easily to the current reality of the tropical American world, as Peggy Liss shows in her insightful study Atlantic Empires.

Questions about the moral, religious, and economic justifications for slavery and the slave society formed part of this range of innovative ideas. Eventually, these questions led to changes in jurisprudence, such as the reluctantly delivered judgment by British Chief Justice Lord William Mansfield in 1772 that the owner of the slave James Somerset could not return him to the West Indies, implying that, by being brought to England, Somerset had indeed become a free man. In 1778, the courts of Scotland declared that slavery was illegal in that part of the realm. Together with the Mansfield ruling in England, this meant that slavery could not be considered legal in the British Isles. These legal rulings encouraged the formation of associations and groups designed to promote amelioration in the condition of slaves, or even the eventual abolition of the slave trade and slavery.

Even before the declaration of political independence on the part of the British North American colonies, slavery was under attack by a number of religious and political leaders from, for example, the Quakers and Evangelicals, such as William Wilberforce (1759–1833), Thomas Clarkson (1760–1846), and Granville Sharp (1735–1813). Antislavery movements flourished both in the metropolis and in the colonies. In 1787, Abbé Grégoire (1750–1831), Abbé Raynal (1713–1796), the marquis de Lafayette (1757–1834), and others formed an antislavery committee in France called the Société des Amis des Noirs, which took up the issue in the recently convened Estates General in 1789 and later pushed for broadening the basis of citizenship in the National Assembly. Their benevolent proposals, however, were overtaken by events.

The intellectual changes throughout the region cannot be separated from changes in the Caribbean. During the eighteenth century, the Caribbean plantation slave societies reached their apogee. British and French (mostly) absentee sugar producers made headlines in their respective imperial capitals, drawing the attention of political economists and moral philosophers. The most influential voice among the latter was probably Adam Smith (1723–1790), whose Wealth of Nations appeared in the auspicious year of 1776. Basing his arguments on the comparative costs of production, Smith insisted that, "from the experience of all ages and nations, I believe, that the work done by free men comes cheaper in the end than that performed by slaves." Slavery, Smith further stated, was both uneconomical and irrational not only because the plantation system was a wasteful use of land but also because slaves cost more to maintain than free laborers.

The plantation system had, by the middle of the eighteenth century, created some strange communities of production throughout the Caribbean—highly artificial constructs involving labor inputs from Africa and managerial direction from Europe producing largely imported staples for an overseas market. These were the plantation communities producing sugar, coffee, cotton, and tobacco.26 Elsewhere, I have referred to this unintended consequence of the sugar revolutions as the development of exploitation societies—a tiered system of interlocking castes and classes all determined by the necessities, structure, and rhythm of the plantations.

French Saint Domingue prided itself, with considerable justification, on being the richest colony in the world. According to David Geggus, Saint Domingue in the 1780s accounted for "some 40 percent of France's foreign trade, its 7,000 or so plantations were absorbing by the 1790s also 10–15 percent of United States exports and had important commercial links with the British and Spanish West Indies as well. On the coastal plains of this colony little larger than Wales was grown about two-fifths of the world's sugar, while from its mountainous interior came over half the world's coffee." The population was structured like a typical slave plantation exploitation society in tropical America. Approximately 25,000 white colonists, whom we might call psychological transients, dominated the social pyramid, which included an intermediate subordinate stratum of approximately the same number of free, miscegenated persons referred to throughout the French Caribbean colonies as gens de couleur, and a depressed, denigrated, servile, and exploited majority of some 500,000 workers from Africa or of African descent. These demographic proportions would have been familiar to Jamaica, Barbados, or Cuba during the acme of their slave plantation regimes. The centripetal cohesive force remained the plantations of sugar, coffee, cotton, and indigo and the subsidiary activities associated with them. The plantations, therefore, joined the local society and the local economy with a human umbilical cord—the transatlantic slave trade—that attached the colony to Africa. Economic viability depended on the continuous replenishing of the labor force by importing African slaves. Nevertheless, the system was both sophisticated and complex, with commercial marketing operations that extended to several continents.

If whites, free colored, and slaves formed the three distinct castes in the French Caribbean colony, these caste divisions overshadowed a complex system of class and corresponding internal class antagonisms, across all sectors of the society. Among the whites, the class antagonism was between the successful so-called grands blancs, with their associated hirelings—plantation overseers, artisans, and supervisors—and the so-called petits blancs—small merchants' representatives, small proprietors, and various types of hangers-on. The antagonism was palpable. At the same time, all whites shared varying degrees of fear and mistrust of the intermediate group of gens de couleur, but especially the economically upwardly mobile representatives of wealth, education, and polished French culture.33 For their own part, the free non-whites had seen their political and social abilities increasingly circumscribed during the two or so decades before the outbreak of revolution. Their wealth and education certainly placed them socially above the petits blancs. Yet theirs was also an internally divided group, with a division based as much on skin color as on genealogy. As for the slaves, all were distinguished—if that is the proper terminology—by their legal condition as the lifetime property of their masters, and were occasionally subject to extraordinary degrees of daily control and coercion. Within the slave sector, status divisions derived from a bewildering number of factors applied in an equally bewildering number of ways: skills, gender, occupation, location (urban or rural, household or field), relationship to production, or simply the arbitrary whim of the master.

The slave society was an extremely explosive society, although the tensions could be, and were, carefully and constantly negotiated between and across the various castes. While the common fact of owning slaves might have produced some mutual interest across caste lines, that occurrence was not frequent enough or strong enough to establish a manifest class solidarity. White and free colored slaveowners were often insensitive to the basic humanity and civil rights of the slaves, but they were forced nevertheless to negotiate continuously the way in which they operated with their slaves in order to prevent the collapse of their world. Nor did similar race and color facilitate an affinity between free non-whites and slaves. Slaves never accepted their legal condemnation, but perpetual military resistance to the system of plantation slavery was inherent neither to Saint Domingue in particular nor to the Caribbean in general. So when and where the system broke down resulted more from a combination of circumstances than from the inherent revolutionary disposition of the individual artificial commercial construct.

Without the outbreak of the French Revolution, it is unlikely that the system in Saint Domingue would have broken down in 1789. And while Haiti precipitated the collapse of the system regionally, it seems fair to say that a system such as the Caribbean slave system bore within itself the seeds of its own destruction and therefore could not last indefinitely. As David Geggus points out,

More than twenty [slave revolts] occurred in the years 1789–1832, most of them in the Greater Caribbean. Coeval with the heyday of the abolitionist movement in Europe and chiefly associated with Creole slaves, the phenomenon emerged well before the French abolition of slavery or the Saint-Domingue uprising, even before the declaration of the Rights of Man. A few comparable examples occurred earlier in the century, but the series in question began with an attempted rebellion in Martinique in August 1789. Slaves claimed that the government in Europe had abolished slavery but that local slaveowners were preventing the island governor from implementing the new law. The pattern would be repeated again and again across the region for the next forty years and would culminate in the three large-scale insurrections in Barbados, 1816, Demerara, 1823, and Jamaica, 1831. Together with the Saint-Domingue insurrection of 1791, these were the biggest slave rebellions in the history of the Americas.

In the case of Saint Domingue—as later in the cases of Cuba and Puerto Rico—abolition came from an economically weakened and politically isolated metropolis.

The local bases of the society and the organization of political power could not have been more different in France and its overseas colonies. In France in 1789, the political estates had a long tradition, and the social hierarchy was closely related to genealogy and antiquity. In Saint Domingue, the political system was relatively new, and the hierarchy was determined arbitrarily by race and the occupational relationship to the plantation. Yet the novelty of the colonial situation did not produce a separate and particular language to describe its reality, and the limitations of a common language (that of the metropolis) created a pathetic confusion with tragic consequences for metropolis and colony.

The basic divisions of French society derived from socioeconomic class distinctions. The popular slogans generated by the revolution—Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and the Rights of Man—did not express sentiments equally applicable in both metropolis and colony. What is more, the Estates General, and later the National Assembly, simply could not understand how the French could be divided by a common language. And yet they hopelessly were.

The confusion sprung from two foundations. In the first place, the reports of grievances (cahiers de doléances) of the colonies represented overwhelmingly not the views of a cross-section of the population but merely those of wealthy plantation owners and merchants, especially the absentee residents in France. Moreover, as the French were to find out eventually, the colony was quite complex geographically. The wealthy, expatriate planters of the Plain du Nord were a distinct numerical minority. The interests and preoccupations of the middling sorts of West Province and South Province were vastly different. In the second place, each segment of the free population accepted the slogans of the revolution to win acceptance in France, but they then particularized and emphasized only such portions as applied to their individual causes. The grands blancs saw the Rights of Man as the rights and privileges of bourgeois man, much as the framers of North American independence in Philadelphia in 1776. Moreover, grands blancs saw liberty not as a private affair but rather as greater colonial autonomy, especially in economic matters. They also hoped that the metropolis would authorize more free trade, thereby weakening the restrictive effects of the mercantilist commerce exclusif with the mother country. Petits blancs wanted equality, that is, active citizenship for all white persons, not just the wealthy property owners, and less bureaucratic control over the colonies. But they stressed a fraternity based on a whiteness of skin color that they equated with being genuinely French. Gens de couleur also wanted equality and fraternity, but they based their claim on an equality of all free regardless of skin color, since they fulfilled all other qualifications for active citizenship. Slaves were not part of the initial discussion and sloganeering, but from their subsequent actions they clearly supported liberty. It was not the liberty of the whites, however. Theirs was a personal freedom that undermined their relationship to their masters and the plantation, and jeopardized the wealth of a considerable number of those who were already free.

In both France and its Caribbean colonies, the course of the revolution took strangely parallel paths. The revolution truly began in both with the calling of the Estates General to Versailles in the fateful year of 1789. Immediately, conflict over form and representation developed, although it affected metropolis and colonies in different ways. In the metropolis, the Estates General, despite not having met for 175 years, had an ancient history and tradition, albeit almost forgotten. The various overseas colonists who assumed they were or aspired to be Frenchmen and to participate in the deliberations and the unfolding course of events did not really share that history and that tradition. In many ways, they were new men created by a new type of society—the plantation slave society. Their experience was quite distinct from that of the planters and slaveowners in the British Caribbean. In Jamaica, Edward Long was an influential and wealthy member of British society as well as an established Jamaican planter. Bryan Edwards was a long-serving member of the Jamaica Legislature and after 1796 a legitimate member of the British Parliament, representing simultaneously a metropolitan constituency and overseas colonial interests.

At first, things seemed to be going well for the French colonial representatives, as the Estates General declared itself a National Assembly in 1789 and the National Assembly proclaimed France to be a republic in August 1792. In France, as James Billington puts it, "the subsequent history of armed rebellion reveals a seemingly irresistible drive toward a strong, central executive. Robespierre's twelve-man Committee of Public Safety (1793–94), gave way to a five-man Directorate (1795–99), to a three-man Consulate, to the designation of Napoleon as First Consul in 1799, and finally to Napoleon's coronation as emperor in 1804." In the colonies, the same movement is discernible with a major difference—at least in Saint Domingue. The consolidation of power during the period of armed rebellion gravitated toward non-whites and ended up in the hands of slaves and ex-slaves or their descendants.

With the colonial situation far too confusing for the metropolitan legislators to resolve easily, the armed revolt in the colonies started with an attempted coup by the grands blancs in the north who resented the petits blancs–controlled Colonial Assembly of St. Marc (in West Province) writing a constitution for the entire colony in 1790. Both white groups armed their slaves and prepared for war in the name of the revolution. When, however, the National Assembly passed the May Decree enfranchising propertied mulattos, they temporarily forgot their class differences and forged an uneasy alliance to forestall the revolutionary threat of racial equality. The determined desire of the free non-whites to make a stand for their rights—also arming their slaves for war—made the impending civil war an inevitable racial war.

The precedent set by the superordinate free groups was not lost on the slaves, who comprised the overwhelming majority of the population. If they could fight in separate causes for the antagonistic free sectors of the population, they could fight on their own behalf. And so they did. Violence, first employed by the whites, became the common currency of political change. Finally, in August 1791, after fighting for nearly two years on one or another side of free persons who claimed they were fighting for liberty, the slaves of the Plain du Nord applied their fighting to their own cause. And once they had started, they refused to settle for anything less than full freedom for themselves. When it became clear that their emancipation could not be sustained within the colonial political system, they created an independent state in 1804 to secure it. It was the logical extension of the collective slave revolt that began in 1791.

But before that could happen, Saint Domingue experienced a period of chaos between 1792 and 1802. At one time, as many as six warring factions were in the field simultaneously: slaves, free persons of color, petits blancs, grands blancs, and invading Spanish and English troops, as well as the French vainly trying to restore order and control. Alliances were made and dissolved in opportunistic succession. As the killing increased, power slowly gravitated to the overwhelming majority of the population—the former slaves no longer willing to continue their servility. After 1793, under the control of Pierre-Dominique Toussaint Louverture, ex-slave and ex-slaveowner, the tide of war turned inexorably, assuring the victory of the concept of liberty held by the slaves.44 It was duly, if temporarily, ratified by the National Assembly. But that was neither the end of the fighting nor the end of slavery.

The victory of the slaves in 1793 was, ironically, a victory for colonialism and the revolution in France. The leftward drift of the revolution and the implacable zeal of its colonial administrators, especially the Jacobin commissioner Léger Félicité Sonthonax, to eradicate all traces of counterrevolution and royalism—which he identified with the whites—in Saint Domingue facilitated the ultimate victory of the blacks over the whites. Sonthonax's role, however, does not detract from the brilliant military leadership and political astuteness provided by Toussaint Louverture. In 1797, he became governor general of the colony and in the next four years expelled all invading forces (including the French) and gave it a remarkably modern and democratic constitution. He also suppressed (but failed to eradicate) the revolt of the free coloreds led by André Rigaud and Alexander Pétion in the south, captured the neighboring Spanish colony of Santo Domingo, and freed its small number of slaves. Saint Domingue was a new society with a new political structure. As a reward, Toussaint Louverture made himself governor general for life, much to the displeasure of Napoleon Bonaparte.

Why did the revolution follow such a unique course in Saint Domingue and eventually culminate in the abolition of slavery? Carolyn Fick presents a plausible explanation:

It can be argued therefore that the abolition of slavery in Saint Domingue resulted from a combination of mutually reinforcing factors that fell into place at a particular historical juncture. No single factor or even combination of factors—including the beginning of the French Revolution with its catalytic ideology of equality and liberty, the colonial revolt of the planters and the free coloreds, the context of imperial warfare, and the obtrusive role of a revolutionary abolitionist as civil commissioner—warranted the termination of slavery in Saint Domingue in the absence of independent, militarily organized slave rebellion . . .

From the vantage point of revolutionary France the abolition of slavery seems almost to have been a by-product of the revolution and hardly an issue of pressing concerns to the nation. It was Sonthonax who initiated the abolition of slavery in Saint Domingue, not the Convention. In fact, France only learned that slavery had been abolished in Saint Domingue when the colony's three deputies, Dufay, Mills, and Jean-Baptiste Mars Bellay (respectively a white, a mulatto, and a former free black), arrived in France in January, 1794 to take their seats and asked on February 3 that the Convention officially abolish slavery throughout the colonies . . .

The crucial link then, between the metropolitan revolution and the black revolution in Saint Domingue seems to reside in the conjunctural and complementary elements of a self-determined, massive slave rebellion, on the one hand, and the presence in the colony of a practical abolitionist in the person of Sonthonax, on the other.

Such "conjunctural and complementary elements" did not appear elsewhere in the Americas—not even in the neighboring French colonies of Martinique and Guadeloupe.

The reality of a semi-politically free Saint-Domingue with a free black population ran counter to the grandiose dreams of Napoleon to reestablish a viable French-American empire. It also created what Anthony Maingot has called a "terrified consciousness" among the rest of the slave masters in the Americas. Driven by his desire to restore slavery and disregarding the local population and its leaders, Napoleon sent his brother-in-law General Charles Victor Emmanuel Leclerc with about 10,000 of the finest French troops in 1802 to accomplish his aim. It was a disastrously futile effort. Napoleon ultimately lost the colony, his brother-in-law, and most of the 44,000 troops eventually sent out to conduct the savage and bitter campaign of reconquest. Although Touissant was treacherously spirited away to exile and premature death in France, the independence of Haiti was declared by his former lieutenant, now the new governor general, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, on January 1, 1804. Haiti, the Caribbean, and the Americas would never be the same as before the slave uprising of 1791.

The impact of the Haitian Revolution was both immediate and widespread. The antislavery fighting immediately spawned unrest throughout the region, especially in communities of Maroons in Jamaica, and among slaves in St. Kitts. It sent a wave of immigrants flooding outward to the neighboring islands, and to the United States and Europe. It revitalized agricultural production in Cuba and Puerto Rico. As Alfred Hunt has shown, Haitian emigrants also profoundly affected American language, religion, politics, culture, cuisine, architecture, medicine, and the conflict over slavery, especially in Louisiana. Most of all, the revolution deeply affected the psychology of the whites throughout the Atlantic world. The Haitian Revolution undoubtedly accentuated the sensitivity to race, color, and status across the Caribbean.

Among the political and economic elites of the neighboring Caribbean states, the example of a black independent state as a viable alternative to the Maroon complicated their domestic relations. The predominantly non-white lower orders of society might have admired the achievement in Haiti, but they were conscious that it could not be easily duplicated. "Haiti represented the living proof of the consequences of not just black freedom," wrote Maingot, "but, indeed, black rule. It was the latter which was feared; therefore, the former had to be curtailed if not totally prohibited." The favorable coincidence of time, place, and circumstances that produced a Haiti failed to materialize again. For the rest of white America, the cry of "Remember Haiti" proved an effective way to restrain exuberant local desires for political liberty, especially in slave societies. Indeed, the long delay in achieving Cuban political independence can largely be attributed to astute Spanish metropolitan use of the "terrified consciousness" of the Cuban Creoles to a scenario like that in Saint Domingue between 1789 and 1804. Nevertheless, after 1804, it would be difficult for the local political and economic elites to continue the complacent status quo of the mid-eighteenth century. Haiti cast an inevitable shadow over all slave societies. Antislavery movements grew stronger and bolder, especially in Great Britain, and the colonial slaves themselves became increasingly more restless. Most important, in the Caribbean, whites lost the confidence that they had before 1789 to maintain the slave system indefinitely. In 1808, the British abolished their transatlantic slave trade, and they dismantled the slave system between 1834 and 1838. During that time, free non-whites (and Jews) were given political equality with whites in many colonies. The French abolished their slave trade in 1818, although their slave system, reconstituted by 1803 in Martinique and Guadeloupe, limped on until 1848. Both British and French imperial slave systems—as well as the Dutch and the Danish—were dismantled administratively. The same could be said for the mainland Spanish-American states and Brazil. In the United States, slavery ended abruptly in a disastrous civil war. Spain abolished slavery in Puerto Rico (where it was not important) in 1873. The Cuban case, where slavery was extremely important, proved far more difficult and also resulted in a long, destructive civil war before emancipation was finally accomplished in 1886. By then, it was not the Haitian Revolution but Haiti itself that evoked negative reactions among its neighbors.

By FRANKLIN W. KNIGHT

African American abolitionist David Walker (1785-1830): wrote
Walker's Appeal,
urging slaves to resort to violence when necessary to win their freedom.

David Walker was born free, of a free mother and slave father,
in Wilmington, N.C., on Sept. 28, 1785. He early learned to read and write, and
he read extensively on the subjects of revolution and resistance to oppression.
When he was about 30, he left the South, because "If I remain in this bloody
land, I will not live long. As true as God reigns, I will be avenged for the
sorrows which my people have suffered." In 1826 Walker settled in Boston, Mass.,
where he became the agent for Freedom's Journal, the black abolitionist
newspaper, and a leader in the Colored Association. For a living he ran a
secondhand clothing store.

Walker published an antislavery article in September 1828; with
three others, it became the pamphlet Walker's Appeal (1829). The articles
were articulate and militant in their bitter denunciation of slavery, those who
profited by it, and those who willingly accepted it. Walker called for vengeance
against white men, but he also expressed the hope that their cruel behavior
toward blacks would change, making vengeance unnecessary. His message to the
slaves was direct: if liberty is not given you, rise in bloody rebellion.

Southern slave masters hated Walker and put a price on his head.
In 1829, 50 unsolicited copies of Walker's Appeal were delivered to a
black minister in Savannah, Ga. The frightened minister, understandably
concerned for his welfare, informed the police. The police, in turn, informed
the governor of Georgia. As a result, the state legislature met in secret
session and passed a bill making the circulation of materials that might incite
slaves to riot a capital offense. The legislature also offered a reward for
Walker's capture, $10,000 alive and $1,000 dead.

Other Southern states took similar measures. Louisiana enacted a
bill ordering expulsion of all freed slaves who had settled in the state after
1825. The slaveholding South was frightened by men like Walker, and their harsh
reactions to the threat they saw in Walker's Appeal seemed justified when
black slave Nat Turner led his bloody rebellion in 1831.

Most abolitionists disagreed with Walker's advice to the slaves
to resort to violence to obtain freedom. White abolitionist William Lloyd
Garrison, who believed in immediate emancipation but thought it could be
accomplished through persuasion and argument, did endorse the spirit of the
Appeal, however, and ran large portions of it, together with a review, in
his paper, the Liberator. On the other hand, Frederick Douglass accepted
a more activist position, probably due to Walker's influence and that of Henry
H. Garnet, who also called for massive slave rebellions.

Walker died in Boston on June 28, 1830, under mysterious
circumstances. His challenge to the slaves to free themselves was an important
contribution to the assault on human slavery. In June
1830, not long
after publishing the third edition of his Appeal, David Walker was found
dead in his home. Many believe he was
poisoned,
although there is no evidence to support that allegation.

Walker's Appeal is available in recent editions: Walker's Appeal,
in Four Articles [by] David Walker; An Address to the Slaves of the
United States of America [by] Henry Highland Garnet (1948; reprinted 1969
with an introduction by W. L. Katz and a brief sketch of Walker's life);
David Walker's Appeal, edited by Charles M. Wiltse (1965); and One
Continual Cry: David Walker's Appeal ... Its Setting and Its Meaning, edited
by Herbert Aptheker (1965). A brief biography of Walker appears in Historical
Negro Biographies, edited by Wilhelmena S. Robinson (1968). Lerone Bennett,
Jr., Pioneers in Protest (1968), contains a chapter on Walker. Walker
figures in the surveys by John Hope Franklin, From Slavery to Freedom: A
History of American Negroes (1947; 3d rev. ed. 1968), and Lerone Bennett,
Jr., Before the Mayflower: A History of the Negro in America, 1619-1962 (1962;
4th ed. 1969).

FPRIVATE "TYPE=PICT;ALT="

My dearly beloved Brethren and Fellow
Citizens.

Having traveled over a considerable portion of
these United States, and having, in the course of my travels, taken the most
accurate observations of things as they exist -- the result of my observations
has warranted the full and unshaken conviction, that we, (coloured people of
these United States,) are the most degraded, wretched, and abject set of beings
that ever lived since the world began; and I pray God that none like us ever may
live again until time shall be no more. They tell us of the Israelites in Egypt,
the Helots in Sparta, and of the Roman Slaves, which last were made up from
almost every nation under heaven, whose sufferings under those ancient and
heathen nations, were, in comparison with ours, under this enlightened and
Christian nation, no more than a cypher -- or, in other words, those heathen
nations of antiquity, had but little more among them than the name and form of
slavery; while wretchedness and endless miseries were reserved, apparently in a
phial, to be poured out upon, our fathers ourselves and our children, by
Christian Americans!



...
... I call upon the professing Christians, I call
upon the philanthropist, I call upon the very tyrant himself, to show me a page
of history, either sacred or profane, on which a verse can be found, which
maintains, that the Egyptians heaped the insupportable insult upon the
children of Israel, by telling them that they were not of the human family.
Can the whites deny this charge? Have they not, after having reduced us to the
deplorable condition of slaves under their feet, held us up as descending
originally from the tribes of Monkeys or Orang-Outangs? O! my God!
I appeal to every man of feeling-is not this insupportable? Is it not heaping
the most gross insult upon our miseries, because they have got us under their
feet and we cannot help ourselves? Oh! pity us we pray thee, Lord Jesus, Master.
-- Has Mr. Jefferson declared to the world, that we are inferior to the whites,
both in the endowments of our bodies and our minds? It is indeed surprising,
that a man of such great learning, combined with such excellent natural parts,
should speak so of a set of men in chains. I do not know what to compare it to,
unless, like putting one wild deer in an iron cage, where it will be secured,
and hold another by the side of the same, then let it go, and expect the one in
the cage to run as fast as the one at liberty. So far, my brethren, were the
Egyptians from heaping these insults upon their slaves, that Pharaoh's daughter
took Moses, a son of Israel for her own, as will appear by the following.

...
The world knows, that slavery as it existed was,
mans, (which was the primary cause of their destruction) was, comparatively
speaking, no more than a cypher, when compared with ours under the
Americans. Indeed I should not have noticed the Roman slaves, had not the very
learned and penetrating Mr. Jefferson said, "when a master was murdered, all his
slaves in the same house, or within hearing, were condemned to death." -- Here
let me ask Mr. Jefferson, (but he is gone to answer at the bar of God, for the
deeds done in his body while living,) I therefore ask the whole American people,
had I not rather die, or be put to death, than to be a slave to any tyrant, who
takes not only my own, but my wife and children's lives by the inches? Yea,
would I meet death with avidity far! far!! in preference to such servile
submission to the murderous hands of tyrants. Mr. Jefferson's very severe
remarks on us have been so extensively argued upon by men whose attainments in
literature, I shall never be able to reach, that I would not have meddled with
it, were it not to solicit each of my brethren, who has the spirit of a man, to
buy a copy of Mr. Jefferson's "Notes on Virginia," and put it in the hand of his
son.

...
But let us review Mr. Jefferson's remarks respecting
us some further. Comparing our miserable fathers, with the learned philosophers
of Greece, he says: "Yet notwithstanding these and other discouraging
circumstances among the Romans, their slaves were often their rarest artists.
They excelled too, in science, insomuch as to be usually employed as tutors to
their master's children; Epictetus, Terence and Phaedrus, were slaves, -- but
they were of the race of whites. It is not their condition then, but
nature, which has produced the distinction." See this, my brethren! ! Do you
believe that this assertion is swallowed by millions of the whites? Do you know
that Mr. Jefferson was one of as great characters as ever lived among the
whites? See his writings for the world, and public labours for the United States
of America. Do you believe that the assertions of such a man, will pass away
into oblivion unobserved by this people and the world? If you do you are much
mistaken-See how the American people treat us -- have we souls in our bodies?
Are we men who have any spirits at all? I know that there are many
swell-bellied fellows among us, whose greatest object is to fill their
stomachs. Such I do not mean -- I am after those who know and feel, that we are
MEN, as well as other people; to them, I say, that unless we try to refute Mr.
Jefferson's arguments respecting us, we will only establish them.

...
...I must observe to my brethren that at the close
of the first Revolution in this country, with Great Britain, there were but
thirteen States in the Union, now there are twenty-four, most of which are
slave-holding States, and the whites are dragging us around in chains and in
handcuffs, to their new States and Territories to work their mines and farms, to
enrich them and their children-and millions of them believing firmly that we
being a little darker than they, were made by our Creator to be an inheritance
to them and their children for ever-the same as a parcel of brutes.

Are we MEN! ! -- I ask you, 0 my brethren I are
we MEN? Did our Creator make us to be slaves to dust and ashes like ourselves?
Are they not dying worms as well as we? Have they not to make their appearance
before the tribunal of Heaven, to answer for the deeds done in the body, as well
as we? Have we any other Master but Jesus Christ alone? Is he not their Master
as well as ours? -- What right then, have we to obey and call any other Master,
but Himself? How we could be so submissive to a gang of men, whom we
cannot tell whether they are as good as ourselves or not, I never could
conceive. However, this is shut up with the Lord, and we cannot precisely tell
-- but I declare, we judge men by their works.

The whites have always been an unjust, jealous,
unmerciful, avaricious and blood-thirsty set of beings, always seeking after
power and authority.



...
...to my no ordinary astonishment, [a] Reverend
gentleman got up and told us (coloured people) that slaves must be obedient to
their masters -- must do their duty to their masters or be whipped -- the whip
was made for the backs of fools, &c. Here I pause for a moment, to give the
world time to consider what was my surprise, to hear such preaching from a
minister of my Master, whose very gospel is that of peace and not of blood and
whips, as this pretended preacher tried to make us believe. What the American
preachers can think of us, I aver this day before my God, I have never been able
to define. They have newspapers and monthly periodicals, which they receive in
continual succession, but on the pages of which, you will scarcely ever find a
paragraph respecting slavery, which is ten thousand times more injurious to this
country than all the other evils put together; and which will be the final
overthrow of its government, unless something is very speedily done; for their
cup is nearly full.-Perhaps they will laugh at or make light of this; but I tell
you Americans! that unless you speedily alter your course, you and your
Country are gone! ! ! ! !

..
If any of us see fit to go away, go to those who have been for
many years, and are now our greatest earthly friends and benefactors -- the
English. If not so, go to our brethren, the Haytians, who, according to their
word, are bound to protect and comfort us. The Americans say, that we are
ungrateful-but I ask them for heaven's sake, what should we be grateful to them
for -- for murdering our fathers and mothers ? -- Or do they wish us to return
thanks to them for chaining and handcuffing us, branding us, cramming fire down
our throats, or for keeping us in slavery, and beating us nearly or quite to
death to make us work in ignorance and miseries, to support them and their
families. They certainly think that we are a gang of fools. Those among them,
who have volunteered their services for our redemption, though we are unable to
compensate them for their labours, we nevertheless thank them from the bottom of
our hearts, and have our eyes steadfastly fixed upon them, and their labours of
love for God and man. -- But do slave-holders think that we thank them for
keeping us in miseries, and taking our lives by the inches?

...
Let no man of us budge one step, and let
slave-holders come to beat us from our country. America is more our country,
than it is the whites-we have enriched it with our blood and tears. The
greatest riches in all America have arisen from our blood and tears: -- and will
they drive us from our property and homes, which we have earned with our
blood? They must look sharp or this very thing will bring swift destruction
upon them. The Americans have got so fat on our blood and groans, that they have
almost forgotten the God of armies. But let the go on.

...
Do the colonizationists think to send us off
without first being reconciled to us? Do they think to bundle us up like brutes
and send us off, as they did our brethren of the State of Ohio? Have they not to
be reconciled to us, or reconcile us to them, for the cruelties with which they
have afflicted our fathers and us? Methinks colonizationists think they have a
set of brutes to deal with, sure enough. Do they think to drive us from our
country and homes, after having enriched it with our blood and tears, and keep
back millions of our dear brethren, sunk in the most barbarous wretchedness, to
dig up gold and silver for them and their children? Surely, the Americans must
think that we are brutes, as some of them have represented us to be. They think
that we do not feel for our brethren, whom they are murdering by the inches, but
they are dreadfully deceived.

...What
nation under heaven, will be able to do any thing with us, unless God gives us
up into its hand? But Americans. I declare to you, while you keep us and our
children in bondage, and treat us like brutes, to make us support you and your
families, we cannot be your friends. You do not look for it do you? Treat us
then like men, and we will be your friends. And there is not a doubt in my mind,
but that the whole of the past will be sunk into oblivion, and we yet, under
God, will become a united and happy people. The whites may say it is impossible,
but remember that nothing is impossible with God.

...I count my
life not dear unto me, but I am ready to be offered at any moment, For what is
the use of living, when in fact I am dead. But remember, Americans, that as
miserable, wretched, degraded and abject as you have made us in preceding, and
in this generation, to support you and your families, that some of you, (whites)
on the continent of America, will yet curse the day that you ever were born. You
want slaves, and want us for your slaves ! ! ! My colour will yet, root some of
you out of the very face of the earth ! ! ! ! ! ! You may doubt it if you
please. I know that thousands will doubt-they think they have us so well secured
in wretchedness, to them and their children, that it is impossible for such
things to occur.

...
See your Declaration Americans! ! ! Do you
understand your won language? Hear your languages, proclaimed to the world, July
4th, 1776 -- "We hold these truths to be self evident -- that ALL MEN ARE
CREATED EQUAL! ! that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness! !" Compare your own language above, extracted from your
Declaration of Independence, with your cruelties and murders inflicted by your
cruel and unmerciful fathers and yourselves on our fathers and on us -- men who
have never given your fathers or you the least provocation! ! ! ! ! !