French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau makes claim that inequality is undesirable—things and society were better when there was more natural law, rather than societal constructs. There’s this idea of having a civil society— a natural state manifesting into a civil state with the implementation of property and there being value placed in that. Toussaint Louverture’s prominent role in the Haitian success over colonialism and slavery had earned him the admiration and obedience of friends and detractors alike. But holding such a prominent role and title as leader in a rebellion that ended slavery in the French colony of Saint Domingue, being a colored man, a former slave himself, and yet still owning his own slaves— why? The Haitian Revolution is, in fact, the only successful large-scale slave insurrection in history, often seen as initiating the decline of the slave trade— why would its most pro dominant leader appear to endorse such behavior by participating in the moral inequality?
Moral inequality is established by the consent or convention of men. Based upon unnatural foundations, it is not created by Nature but by the institutions of man. Differences in wealth, power, status or class are all moral inequalities; they involve one person benefiting at the expense of another. Self-preservation is the key principle from which natural right flows. There is a desire to preserve oneself can push one sentient being to harm another— which is perhaps what lies behind the fundamental nature of Louverture. The system of needs that enslave man make him inauthentic and untrue- to both himself and others. He cannot behave in an authentic way towards his fellow citizens because he is continually thinking about how to deceive and dominate them. Louverture’s life, built around a lack on authenticity, is fueled by greed; and the idea of a system of needs is a concept that changes and becomes corrupt as man develops.
In a letter to Etienne Laveaux, interim Governor General of the French section of St. Domingue, Louverture states: “blacks are not fit to be free, that if they become free they will no longer work, and they will steal and kill” (24). Toussaint Louverture almost endorses inequality between social groups for his own political standing— weakening this common idea of Louverture being a military hero and rather a manipulative tyrant. Larger aims towards the oppressed lower class and slaves wasn’t to purely liberate them but rather they were pawns in his larger scheme towards a greater presence and status within society. There’s a psychological portrait that is painted of Louverture throughout this collection by Jean-Bertrand Aristide— one that is two-faced and deceptive to the morality and that disguises his craving for social status with a supposed humanitarian longing for equality. If Louverture truly believed that “We are all free by natural right”, why would he approach the idea of betraying his own emancipated followers by leading them back into bondage, in the hope of getting official protection for himself? Ultimately he restored the slave-trade in St. Domingue, after having abolished it — restored it because the plantations needed labor. Louverture promulgated a labor code that in practice was only marginally better than slavery— beginning to scarcely pay for demanding labor.
Polarities exist between the meanings of freedom and liberty as well as slavery and racial equality. While one may be achieved, the other may still persist and flow through the veins of society. As stated by Louverture, “It is I who have undertaken [this struggle] and I wish to fight until it [liberty] exists… Equality cannot exist without liberty. And for liberty to exist, we must have unity”(2). But unity cannot exist when you have a fraudulent leader acting for political gain. Equality can equate to balanced distribution of material goods, income, social status, etc. Freedom can be distinguished by meaning the absolvement from something. But liberty denotes the right of an individual to act in the way one wants, or the given ability to do something. Louverture was correct, one cannot exist without the other— one must be free under the law to direct their own lives. Both freedom and liberty refer to the quality or state of being free, and one cannot prevent the pursuit of others goals in the thought of different outcomes and with an underlying bias of superiority. In a letter to the General Assembly, Louverture discusses the state of being unequal regarding the avarice, “we have been victims”, the “we” meaning black slaves, “We are black, it is true, but tell us, gentlemen, you who are so judicious, what is the law that says that the black man must belong to and be the property of the white man?” (6). Despite Louverture making these noble and contemplative claims to the given white superior, there is veiled hypocrisy; actively undermining the privileged white ideology and yet owning slaves himself.
For Toussaint, the concept of freedom lies in the power of organized labor under the rule of the universal— right-based laws offered by the French Republic— for “I told them that if they wished to preserve their liberty they would have to submit to the laws of the Republic” (22). The issue lies in L'Ouverture's passive alignment with the French Republic in hopes of rising to a higher power, fearing this captive past and degrading subservience. That while he may claim to believe that “… liberty and equality are inseparable, and to achieve them will require subordinating a plurality of competing demands within a unified struggle to destroy plantation slavery”, the advantages given to Toussaint throughout his life, such as education and military training, have allowed him to be placed slightly higher in the hierarchy within society, granting him to rise above while others, the majority of the colored demographic, remain static (1). Toussaint often embodies the idealized hero. While the contrasting view of an authoritarian ruler is not as widely accepted, Toussaint having been a slave, actively participates in the same corruption and continued to rise within this unstable political society where there is demoralization used to exploit those who believed that it would protect their freedom.