I'm flattered, really, but I doubt if I'll be able to make as much of an impact as I would like. There's a reason the Simon Schama's of his world have all the best posts and platforms. Anyway, I'll be in France - though I'll certainly make sure my works are translated into English (by myself, if necessary).
Actually, the interesting thing about those who wanted the abolition of the slave trade is that many of them were not for the abolition of slavery and certainly not of colonialism. Most of them were not in it for particularly humanitarian reasons, but rather because it was becoming too expensive to continue with the old system, under which large numbers of captives were expected to die, if not en route, then within an average of ten years on the plantations - in other words, they were were expendable. They became much less expendable when the demand for new captives began to outpace the supply. At that point, advocates of the abolition of the slave trade began looking for alternatives for keeping the colonial system going, some advocating "breeding" slaves on the plantations (which would require a higher level of investment in them and which would, yes, in some ways improve conditions for them, but only to increase their life expectancy and ensure their ability to have children). Other, more "far-sighted" theorists began to realize that wage-slavery is far more efficient than actual slavery (you haven't actually invested in the workers, so if they starve on the pittance you pay them it's no longer your problem - charming, right?) and began to advocate for the gradual abolition of slavery, over eighty years, for example (Condorcet was among these last).
The National Convention's program was entirely different: the slaves were freed and made citizens immediately and at the same time. In fact, the decree of 16 Pluviôse Year II that I just mentioned was voted after the reception of the very symbolic deputation of Saint-Domingue into the Convention : one black deputy (Belley), one métis deputy (Mills), and one white deputy (Dufay).
In France itself, there was no slavery, even under the Ancien Régime - if a colonist brought his slaves to France and they decided they didn't want to serve him any more, there was nothing he could do about it - and discrimination based on skin color was virtually non-existant. For example, Julien Raimond, one of the founders of the Society of Citizens of Color which played a big role in enlightening public opinion as to what was going on in the colonies during the Revolution, was the son of a "white" plantation owner and his legitimate "black" wife. (This was extremely common in the colonies and the class of plantation owners was largely mixed - which complicated segregationalist efforts, let it be said in passing - when you hear about "free blacks" in the colonies, this is really, for the most part, referring to members of this dominant class that their rivals in the segregationalist party are trying to shut out of it.) Raimond was his father's heir and he and his siblings were sent to France to be educated. His sisters stayed in France and married wealthy merchants (clearly, it mattered much more to them that they were the daughters of a wealthy plantation owner than whatever the color of their skin was). Raimond returned to Saint-Domingue, where he was harrassed and discriminated against by the segregationalists, so he returned to France to lobby against them, under the protection of the minister de Castries, who was forced by the more powerful segregationalist lobby to resign. Because he could scarcely go back to Saint-Domingue after the failure of his project to reform, he remained in France (on his wife's lands - again, regardless of his skin color in France itself he's hardly a victim of the Ancien Régime), where he could still be found in 1789... And where, naturally, he gained the same voting rights as everyone else upon the arrival of the Revolution.
Part 1
Actually, the interesting thing about those who wanted the abolition of the slave trade is that many of them were not for the abolition of slavery and certainly not of colonialism. Most of them were not in it for particularly humanitarian reasons, but rather because it was becoming too expensive to continue with the old system, under which large numbers of captives were expected to die, if not en route, then within an average of ten years on the plantations - in other words, they were were expendable. They became much less expendable when the demand for new captives began to outpace the supply. At that point, advocates of the abolition of the slave trade began looking for alternatives for keeping the colonial system going, some advocating "breeding" slaves on the plantations (which would require a higher level of investment in them and which would, yes, in some ways improve conditions for them, but only to increase their life expectancy and ensure their ability to have children). Other, more "far-sighted" theorists began to realize that wage-slavery is far more efficient than actual slavery (you haven't actually invested in the workers, so if they starve on the pittance you pay them it's no longer your problem - charming, right?) and began to advocate for the gradual abolition of slavery, over eighty years, for example (Condorcet was among these last).
The National Convention's program was entirely different: the slaves were freed and made citizens immediately and at the same time. In fact, the decree of 16 Pluviôse Year II that I just mentioned was voted after the reception of the very symbolic deputation of Saint-Domingue into the Convention : one black deputy (Belley), one métis deputy (Mills), and one white deputy (Dufay).
In France itself, there was no slavery, even under the Ancien Régime - if a colonist brought his slaves to France and they decided they didn't want to serve him any more, there was nothing he could do about it - and discrimination based on skin color was virtually non-existant. For example, Julien Raimond, one of the founders of the Society of Citizens of Color which played a big role in enlightening public opinion as to what was going on in the colonies during the Revolution, was the son of a "white" plantation owner and his legitimate "black" wife. (This was extremely common in the colonies and the class of plantation owners was largely mixed - which complicated segregationalist efforts, let it be said in passing - when you hear about "free blacks" in the colonies, this is really, for the most part, referring to members of this dominant class that their rivals in the segregationalist party are trying to shut out of it.) Raimond was his father's heir and he and his siblings were sent to France to be educated. His sisters stayed in France and married wealthy merchants (clearly, it mattered much more to them that they were the daughters of a wealthy plantation owner than whatever the color of their skin was). Raimond returned to Saint-Domingue, where he was harrassed and discriminated against by the segregationalists, so he returned to France to lobby against them, under the protection of the minister de Castries, who was forced by the more powerful segregationalist lobby to resign. Because he could scarcely go back to Saint-Domingue after the failure of his project to reform, he remained in France (on his wife's lands - again, regardless of his skin color in France itself he's hardly a victim of the Ancien Régime), where he could still be found in 1789... And where, naturally, he gained the same voting rights as everyone else upon the arrival of the Revolution.