I am indeed pursuing a history major. To clarify: I first became interested in the French Revolution in 9th grade and have been studying it, with more or less method, ever since. I'm now in my third year at Oberlin College, which year I am taking to study in Paris. After I get my BA, I intend to return here for graduate work and eventually to become a historian.
Interestingly, according to the law, free blacks already had citizenship. Which is to say, the Code noir of 1685 only recognized two statutes: "free subject of the king of France" and "slave". Everyone in the former category became a citizen with the Revolution. However, there was a powerful segregationist party in the French colonies that was (quite illegally) depriving them of their rights and trying to confirm this injustice legally and that was what Robespierre spoke out against. He was also for the abolition of slavery, which as a result of the Revolution of Saint-Domingue, the most important of the French colonies, was abolished by the representatives of the National Convention on mission there, Sonthonax and Polverel, the Convention itself later ratified this decision and extended it to all the other colonies (though application was not universal, due to difficulties involving the counterrevolutionary colonists, who joined forces with the British and the Spanish against France to keep slavery in place), on 16 Pluviôse Year II (4 February 1794).
Robespierre also argued for the rights of full citizenship for religious minorities and actors and against the Constituent Assembly's decrees dividing the population into "active" and "passive" citizens, in which system, levels of citizenship were determined by wealth as indicated by direct taxation (the equivalent of 3 days pay to vote, 10 to be an elector, and a silver mark - a great deal of money - to be eligible for election). This last qualification was never put into effect, but the Legislative Assembly was elected by only "active" citizens. These qualifications were abolished for the election of the Convention.
I don't mean to say that economic considerations are not important, but contrary to what this society would have us believe, they're not everything. It's a shame how easily people buy into the system. Easy enough to do when that's all you've ever been exposed to, I suppose.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-04-01 09:50 am (UTC)Interestingly, according to the law, free blacks already had citizenship. Which is to say, the Code noir of 1685 only recognized two statutes: "free subject of the king of France" and "slave". Everyone in the former category became a citizen with the Revolution. However, there was a powerful segregationist party in the French colonies that was (quite illegally) depriving them of their rights and trying to confirm this injustice legally and that was what Robespierre spoke out against. He was also for the abolition of slavery, which as a result of the Revolution of Saint-Domingue, the most important of the French colonies, was abolished by the representatives of the National Convention on mission there, Sonthonax and Polverel, the Convention itself later ratified this decision and extended it to all the other colonies (though application was not universal, due to difficulties involving the counterrevolutionary colonists, who joined forces with the British and the Spanish against France to keep slavery in place), on 16 Pluviôse Year II (4 February 1794).
Robespierre also argued for the rights of full citizenship for religious minorities and actors and against the Constituent Assembly's decrees dividing the population into "active" and "passive" citizens, in which system, levels of citizenship were determined by wealth as indicated by direct taxation (the equivalent of 3 days pay to vote, 10 to be an elector, and a silver mark - a great deal of money - to be eligible for election). This last qualification was never put into effect, but the Legislative Assembly was elected by only "active" citizens. These qualifications were abolished for the election of the Convention.
I don't mean to say that economic considerations are not important, but contrary to what this society would have us believe, they're not everything. It's a shame how easily people buy into the system. Easy enough to do when that's all you've ever been exposed to, I suppose.