Montesquieu on Slavery,
from Spirit of the Laws
Book XV, In What Manner the Laws of Civil
Slavery Relate to the Nature of the Climate
Slavery, properly so
called, is the establishment of a right which gives to one man such a power
over another, as renders him absolute master of his life and fortune. The state
of slavery is bad of its own nature: it is neither useful to the master nor to
the slave; not to the slave, because he can do nothing thro' a motive of
virtue; not to the master, because he contracts all manner of bad habits with
his slaves; he accustoms himself insensibly to the want of all moral virtues;
he grows fierce, hasty, severe, choleric, voluptuous, and cruel.
In despotic countries, where they are already in a state of
political slavery, civil slavery is more tolerable than in other governments.
Every one ought to be satisfied in those countries with necessaries and life.
Hence the condition of a slave is hardly more burdensome than that of a
subject.
But in a monarchical government, where it is of the utmost
importance that human nature should not be debased, or dispirited, there ought
to be no slavery. In democracies, slavery is contrary to the spirit of the constitution;
it only contributes to give a power and luxury to the citizens which they ought
not to have.
One would never have
imagined that slavery should owe its birth to pity, and that this should have
been excited three different ways.* [note: Justinian's Institutes, Book 1.]
The law of nations, to prevent prisoners from being put to
death, has allowed them to be made slaves. The civil law of the Romans
empowered debtors, who were subject to be ill used by their creditors, to sell
themselves. And the law of nature requires that children, whom a father reduced
to slavery is no longer able to maintain, should be reduced to the same state
as the father.
These reasons of the civilians are all false. It is false that killing in war
is lawful, unless in a case of absolute necessity: but when a man has made
another his slave, he cannot be said to have been under a necessity of taking
away his life, since he actually did not take it away. War gives no other right
over prisoners than to disabe them from doing any further harm, by securing
their persons. All nations concur in detesting the murdering of prisoners in
cold blood.
Nor is it true, that a freeman can sell himself.
The third way is birth, which falls with the two former; for
if a man could not sell himself, much less could he sell an unborn infant. If a
prisoner of war is not to be reduced to slavery, much less are his children.
The lawfulness of putting a malefactor to death arises from this circumstance:
the law by which he is punished was made for his security. A murderer, for
instance, has enjoyed the benefit of the very law which condemns him; it has
been a continual protection to him; he cannot, therefore, object to it. But it
is not so with the slave. The law of slavery can never be beneficial to him; it
is in all cases against him, without ever being for his advantage; and
therefore this law is contrary to the fundamental principle of all societies.
If it be pretended that it has been beneficial to him, as
his master has provided for his subsistence, slavery, at this rate, should be
limited to those who are incapable of earning their livelihood. But who will
take up with such slaves? As to infants, nature, who has supplied their mothers
with milk, had provided for their sustenance; and the remainder of their
childhood approaches so near the age in which they are most capable of being of
service that he who supports them cannot be said to give them an equivalent
which can entitle him to be their master.
Nor is slavery less opposed to the civil law than to that of
nature. What civil law can restrain a slave from running away, since he is not
a member of society, and consequently has no interest in any civil
institutions? He can be retained only by a family law, that is, by the master's
authority.
I would as soon say that
the right of slavery proceeds from the contempt of one nation for another,
founded on a difference in customs.
Lopez de Gama relates that the Spaniards found near St.
Martha several basketsful of crabs, snails, grasshoppers, and locusts, which
proved to be the ordinary provision of the natives. This the conquerors turned
to a heavy charge against the conquered. The author owns that this, with their
smoking and trimming their beards in a different manner, gave rise to the law
by which the Americans became slaves to the Spaniards.
Knowledge humanises mankind, and reason inclines to
mildness; but prejudices eradicate every tender disposition.
I would as soon say that
religion gives its professors a right to enslave those who dissent from it, in
order to render its propagation more easy.
This was the notion that encouraged the ravagers of
Louis XIII was extremely uneasy at a law by which all the
negroes of his colonies were to be made slaves; but it being strongly urged to
him as the readiest means for their conversion, he acquiesced without further
scruple.
Were I to vindicate our
right to make slaves of the negroes, these should be my arguments:
The Europeans, having extirpated the Americans, were obliged to make slaves of
the Africans, for clearing such vast tracts of land.
Sugar would be too dear if the plants which produce it were cultivated by any
other than slaves.
These creatures are all over black, and with such a flat
nose that they can scarcely be pitied.
It is hardly to be believed that God, who is a wise Being,
should place a soul, especially a good soul, in such a black ugly body.
It is so natural to look upon colour as the criterion of
human nature, that the Asiatics, among whom eunuchs are employed, always
deprive the blacks of their resemblance to us by a more opprobrious
distinction.
The colour of the skin may be determined by that of the
hair, which, among the Egyptians, the best philosophers in the world, was of
such importance that they put to death all the red-haired men who fell into
their hands.
The negroes prefer a glass necklace to that gold which
polite nations so highly value. Can there be a greater proof of their wanting
common sense?
It is impossible for us to suppose these creatures to be
men, because, allowing them to be men, a suspicion would follow that we
ourselves are not Christians.
Weak minds exaggerate too much the wrong done to the
Africans. For were the case as they state it, would the European powers, who
make so many needless conventions among themselves, have failed to enter into a
general one, in behalf of humanity and compassion?
It is time to inquire into
the true origin of the right of slavery. It ought to be founded on the nature
of things; let us see if there be any cases where it can be derived thence.
In all despotic governments people make no difficulty in
selling themselves; the political slavery in some measure annihilates the civil
liberty.
According to Mr. Perry, the Muscovites sell themselves very
readily: their reason for it is evident; their liberty is not worth keeping.
At Achim every one is for selling himself. Some of the chief
lords have not less than a thousand slaves, all principal merchants, who have a
great number of slaves themselves, and these also are not without their slaves.
Their masters are their heirs, and put them into trade. In those states, the
freemen being overpowered by the government, have no better resource than that
of making themselves slaves to the tyrants in office.
This is the true and rational origin of that mild law of
slavery which obtains in some countries: and mild it ought to be, as founded on
the free choice a man makes of a master, for his own benefit; which forms a
mutual convention between the two parties.
There is another origin of
the right of slavery, and even of the most cruel slavery which is to be seen
among men.
There are countries where the excess of heat enervates the
body, and renders men so slothful and dispirited that nothing but the fear of
chastisement can oblige them to perform any laborious duty: slavery is there
more reconcilable to reason; and the master being as lazy with respect to his
sovereign as his slave is with regard to him, this adds a political to a civil
slavery.
Aristotle endeavours to prove that there are natural slaves;
but what he says is far from proving it. If there be any such, I believe they
are those of whom I have been speaking.
But as all men are born equal, slavery must be accounted
unnatural, though in some countries it be founded on natural reason; and a wide
difference ought to be made between such countries, and those in which even
natural reason rejects it, as in
Plutarch, in the Life of Numa, says that in Saturn's time
there was neither slave nor master. Christianity has restored that age in our
climates.
Natural slavery, then, is
to be limited to some particular parts of the world. In all other countries,
even the most servile drudgeries may be performed by freemen.
Experience verifies my assertion. Before Christianity had
abolished civil slavery in
No labour is so heavy but it may be brought to a level with
the workman's strength, when regulated by equity, and not by avarice. The
violent fatigues which slaves are made to undergo in other parts may be
supplied by a skilful use of ingenious machines. The Turkish mines in the
Bannat of Temeswør, though richer than those of
I know not whether this article be dictated by my
understanding or by my heart. Possibly there is not that climate upon earth
where the most laborious services might not with proper encouragement be
performed by freemen. Bad laws having made lazy men, they have been reduced to
slavery because of their laziness.
Slavery is of two kinds,
real and personal. The real annexes the slave to the land, which Tacitus makes
the condition of slaves among the Germans. They were not employed in the
family: a stated tribute of corn, cattle, or other movables, paid to their
master, was the whole of their servitude. And such a servitude still continues in
Personal slavery consists in domestic services, and relates
more to the master's person.
The worst degree of slavery is when it is at once both real
and personal, as that of the Helotes among the Lacedømonians. They underwent
the fatigues of the field, and suffered all manner of insults at home. This
helotism is contrary to the nature of things.
Real slavery is to be found only among nations remarkable
for their simplicity of life: all family business being done by the wives and
children. Personal slavery is peculiar to voluptuous nations; luxury requiring
the service of slaves in the house. But helotism joins in the same person the
slavery established by voluptuous nations and that of the most simple.
But of whatsoever kind the
slavery be, the civil laws should endeavour on the one hand to abolish the
abuses of it, and on the other to guard against its dangers.
In Mahometan states, not
only the life and goods of female slaves, but also what is called their virtue
or honour, are at their master's disposal. One of the misfortunes of those
countries is that the greatest part of the nation are born only to be
subservient to the pleasures of the other. This servitude is alleviated by the
laziness in which such slaves spend their days; which is an additional
disadvantage to the state.
It is this indolence which renders the eastern seraglios so
delightful to those very persons whom they were made to confine. People who
dread nothing but labour may imagine themselves happy in those places of
indolence and ease. But this shows how contrary they are to the very intent of
the institution of slavery.
Reason requires that the master's power should not extend to
what does not appertain to his service: slavery should be calculated for
utility, and not for pleasure. The laws of chastity arise from those of nature,
and ought in all nations to be respected.
If a law which preserves the chastity of slaves be good in
those states where an arbitrary power bears down all before it, how much more
will it be so in monarchies, and how much more still in republics?
The law of the Lombards has a regulation which ought to be
adopted by all governments. "If a master debauches his slave's wife, the
slave and his wife shall be restored to their freedom." An admirable
expedient, which, without severity, lays a powerful restraint on the
incontinence of masters!
The Romans seem to have erred on this head. They allowed an
unlimited scope to the master's lusts, and, in some measure, denied their
slaves the privilege of marrying. It is true, they were the lowest part of the
nation; yet there should have been some care taken of their morals, especially
as in prohibiting their marriage they corrupted the morals of the citizens.
Ch. 12. Danger from the Multitude of Slaves.
The multitude of slaves
has different effects in different governments. It is no grievance in a
despotic state, where the political servitude of the whole body takes away the
sense of civil slavery. Those who are called freedmen in reality are little
more so than they who do not come within that class; and as the latter, in
quality of eunuchs, freedmen, or slaves, have generally the management of all
affairs, the condition of a freedman and that of a slave are very nearly
allied. This makes it therefore almost a matter of indifference whether in such
states the slaves be few or numerous.
But in moderate governments it is a point of the highest
importance that there should not be a great number of slaves. The political
liberty of those states adds to the value of civil liberty; and he who is
deprived of the latter is also bereft of the former. He sees the happiness of a
society, of which he is not so much as a member; he sees the security of others
fenced by laws, himself without any protection. He perceives that his master
has a soul, capable of enlarging itself: while his own labours under a continual
depression.
Nothing more assimilates a man to a beast than living among
freedmen, himself a slave. Such people as these are natural enemies of society;
and their number must be dangerous.
It is not therefore to be wondered at that moderate
governments have been so frequently disturbed by the revolts of slaves, and
that this so seldom happens in despotic states.
Ch. 13. Of armed Slaves.
The danger of arming
slaves is not so great in monarchies as in republics. In the former, a warlike people
and a body of nobility are a sufficient check upon these armed slaves; whereas
the pacific members of a republic would have a hard task to quell a set of men
who, having offensive weapons in their hands, would find themselves a match for
the citizens.
The Goths, who conquered Spain, spread themselves over the
country, and soon became very weak. They made three important regulations: they
abolished an ancient custom which prohibited intermarriages with the Romans;
they enacted that all the freedmen belonging to the Fiscus should serve in war,
under penalty of being reduced to slavery; and they ordained that each Goth
should arm and bring into the field the tenth part of his slaves. This was but
a small proportion: besides, these slaves thus carried to the field did not
form a separate body; they were in the army, and might be said to continue in
the family.
Ch. 14. The same Subject continued.
When a whole nation is of
a martial temper, the slaves in arms are less to be feared.
By a law of the Alemans, a slave who had committed a
clandestine theft was liable to the same punishment as a freedman in the like
case; but if he was found guilty of an open robbery, he was only bound to
restore the things so taken. Among the Alemans, courage and intrepidity
extenuated the guilt of an action. They employed their slaves in their wars.
Most republics have been attentive to dispirit their slaves; but the Alemans,
relying on themselves and being always armed, were so far from fearing theirs
that they were rather for augmenting their courage; they were the instruments
either of their depredations or of their glory.
Ch. 15. Precautions to be used in Moderate
Governments.
Lenity and humane
treatment may prevent the dangers to be apprehended from the multitude of
slaves in a moderate government. Men grow reconciled to everything, and even to
servitude, if not aggravated by the severity of the master. The Athenians
treated their slaves with great lenity; and this secured that state from the
commotions raised by the slaves among the austere Lacedømonians.
It does not appear that the primitive Romans met with any
trouble from their slaves. Those civil broils which have been compared to the
Punic wars were the consequence of their having divested themselves of all
humanity towards their slaves.
A frugal and laborious people generally treat their slaves
more kindly than those who are above labour. The primitive Romans used to live,
work, and eat with their slaves; in short, they behaved towards them with
justice and humanity. The greatest punishment they made them suffer was to make
them pass before their neighbours with a forked piece of wood on their backs.
Their manners were sufficient to secure the fidelity of their slaves; so that
there was no necessity for laws.
But when the Romans aggrandised themselves; when their
slaves were no longer the companions of their labour, but the instruments of
their luxury and pride; as they then wanted morals, they had need of laws. It
was even necessary for these laws to be of the most terrible kind, in order to
establish the safety of those cruel masters who lived with their slaves as in
the midst of enemies.
They made the Sillanian Senatus-Consultum, and other laws,
which decreed that when a master was murdered all the slaves under the same
roof, or in any place so near the house as to be within the hearing of a man's
voice, should, without distinction, be condemned to die. Those who in this case
sheltered a slave, in order to save him, were punished as murderers; he whom
his master ordered to kill him, and who obeyed, was reputed guilty; even he who
did not hinder him from killing himself was liable to be punished. If a master
was murdered on a journey, they put to death those who were with him and those
who fled. All these laws operated even against persons whose innocence was
proved; the intent of them was to inspire their slaves with a prodigious
respect for their master. They were not dependent on the civil government, but
on a fault or imperfection of the civil government. They were not derived from
the equity of civil laws, since they were contrary to the principle of those
laws. They were properly founded on the principles of war, with this
difference, that the enemies were in the bosom of the state. The Sillanian
Senatus-Consultum was derived from the law of nations, which requires that a
society, however imperfect, should be preserved.
It is a misfortune in government when the magistrates thus
find themselves under the necessity of making cruel laws; because they have
rendered obedience difficult, they are obliged to increase the penalty of
disobedience, or to suspect the slave's fidelity. A prudent legislator foresees
the ill consequences of rendering the legislature terrible. The slaves amongst
the Romans could have no confidence in the laws; and therefore the laws could
have none in them.
Ch. 16. Regulations between Masters and
Slaves.
The magistrates ought to
take care that the slave has his food and raiment; and this should be regulated
by law.
The laws ought to provide that care be taken of them in
sickness and old age. Claudius decreed that the slaves who in sickness had been
abandoned by their masters should, in case they recovered, be emancipated. This
law insured their liberty; but should not there have been some care also taken
to preserve their lives?
When the law permitted a master to take away the life of his
slave, he was invested with a power which he ought to exercise as judge, and
not as master; it was necessary, therefore, that the law should ordain those
formalities which remove the suspicion of an act of violence.
When fathers, at Rome, were no longer permitted to put their
children to death, the magistrates ordained the punishment which the father
would have inflicted. A like custom between the master and his slaves would be
highly reasonable in a country where masters have the power of life and death.
The law of Moses was extremely severe. If a man struck his
servant so that he died under his hand, he was to be punished; but, if he
survived a day or two, no punishment ensued, because he was his money. Strange
that a civil institution should thus relax the law of nature!
By a law of the Greeks, a slave too severely treated by his
master might insist upon being sold to another. In later times there was a law
of the same nature at Rome. A master displeased with his slave, and a slave
with his master, ought to be separated.
When a citizen uses the slave of another ill, the latter
ought to have the liberty of complaining before the judge. The laws of Plato,
and of most nations, took away from slaves the right of natural defence.
It was necessary then that they should give them a civil
defence.
At Sparta slaves could have no justice against either
insults or injuries. So excessive was their misery, that they were not only the
slaves of a citizen, but also of the public; they belonged to all, as well as
to one. At Rome, when they considered the injury done to a slave, they had
regard only to the interest of the master. In the breach of the Aquilian law
they confounded a wound given to a beast and that given to a slave; they
regarded only the diminution of their value. At Athens, he who had abused the
slave of another was punished severely, and sometimes even with death. The law
of Athens was very reasonable in not adding the loss of security to that of
liberty.
Ch. 17. Of Enfranchisements.
It is easy to perceive
that many slaves in a republican government create a necessity of making many
free. The evil is, if they have too great a number of slaves they cannot keep
them in due bounds; if they have too many freedmen, they cannot live, and must
become a burden to the republic: besides, it may be as much in danger from the
multitude of freedmen as from that of slaves. It is necessary, therefore, that
the law should have an eye to these two inconveniences.
The several laws and decrees of the senate made at Rome,
both for and against slaves, sometimes to limit, and at other times to
facilitate, their enfranchisement, plainly show the embarrassment in which they
found themselves in this respect. There were even times in which they durst not
make laws. When, under Nero, they demanded of the senate permission for the
masters to reduce again to slavery the ungrateful freedmen, the emperor
declared that it was their duty to decide the affairs of individuals, and to
make no general decree.
Much less can I determine what ought to be the regulations
of a good republic in such an affair; this depends on too many circumstances.
Let us, however, make some reflections.
A considerable number of freedmen ought not suddenly to be
made by a general law. We known that among the Volsinienses the freedmen,
becoming masters of the suffrages, enacted an abominable law, which gave them
the right of lying the first night with the young women married to the
free-born.
There are several ways of insensibly introducing new
citizens into a republic. The laws may favour the acquiring a peculium, and put
slaves into a condition of buying their liberty: they may prescribe a term to
servitude, like those of Moses, which limited that of the Hebrew slaves to six
years. It is easy to enfranchise every year a certain number of those slaves
who, by their age, health, or industry, are capable of getting a subsistence.
The evil may be even cured in its root, as a great number of slaves are
connected with the several employments which are given them; to divide among
the free-born a part of these employments, for example, commerce or navigation,
is diminishing the number of slaves.
When there are many freedmen, it is necessary that the civil
laws should determine what they owe to their patron, or that these duties
should be fixed by the contract of enfranchisement.
It is certain that their condition should be more favoured
in the civil than in the political state; because, even in a popular
government, the power ought not to fall into the hands of the vulgar.
At Rome, where they had so many freedmen, the political laws
with regard to them were admirable. They gave them very little, and excluded
them almost from nothing: they had even a share in the legislature, but the
resolutions they were capable of taking were almost of no weight. They might
bear a part in the public offices, and even in the dignity of the priesthood;
but this privilege was in some sort rendered useless by the disadvantages they
had to encounter in the elections. They had a right to enter into the army; but
they were to be registered in a certain class of the census before they could
be soldiers. Nothing hindered the freedmen from being united by marriage with
the families of the free-born; but they were not permitted to mix with those of
the senator. In short, their children were free-born, though they were not so
themselves.
Ch. 18. Of Freedmen and Eunuchs.
Thus in a republican
government it is frequently of advantage that the situation of the freedmen be
but little below that of the free-born, and that the laws be calculated to
remove a dislike of their condition. But in a despotic government, where luxury
and arbitrary power prevail, they have nothing to do in this respect; the
freedmen generally finding themselves above the free-born. They rule in the court
of the prince, and in the palaces of the great; and as they study the foibles
and not the virtues of their master, they lead him entirely by the former, not
by the latter. Such were the freedmen of Rome in the times of the emperors.
When the principal slaves are eunuchs, let never so many
privileges be granted them, they can hardly be regarded as freedmen. For as
they are incapable of having a family of their own, they are naturally attached
to that of another: and it is only by a kind of fiction that they are
considered as citizens.
And yet there are countries where the magistracy is entirely
in their hands. "In Tonquin," says Dampier, "all the mandarins,
civil and military, are eunuchs." They have no families, and though they
are naturally avaricious, the master or the prince benefits in the end by this
very passion.
Dampier tells us, too, that in this country the eunuchs
cannot live without women, and therefore marry. The law which permits their
marriage may be founded partly on their respect for these eunuchs, and partly
on their contempt of the fair sex.
Thus they are trusted with the magistracy, because they have no family; and
permitted to marry, because they are magistrates.
Then it is that the sense which remains would fain supply that which they have
lost; and the enterprises of despair become a kind of enjoyment. So, in Milton,
that spirit who has nothing left but desires, enraged at his degradation, would
make use of his impotency itself.
We see in the history of China a great number of laws to
deprive eunuchs of all civil and military employments; but they always returned
to them again. It seems as if the eunuchs of the east were a necessary evil.