And then slavery was abolished again in 1794, and in 1848. So what happened? Why, how, was slavery stealthily reintroduced? Outremer, plutocracy and its pet demon, Napoleon, a Corsican bandit, happened. In truth, 1794, and 1848 were when laws were passed to abolish French overseas racism, not just slavery. But first the good news, scrupulously ignored by those who want us to believe that all the goodness in the world was the work the pillars of the presently established order.

“Francia” Abolished Slavery In The Seventh Century:

The French government abolished the slave trade within the Frankish Empire around 655 CE. That was the work of Bathilde (“BALDAHILDIS”), queen of the Franks and regent. Bathilde had been captured in England, sold to a plutocrat, from whom she later escaped. Re-captured, she attracted the eye of the king of Burgundy and Neustria, who bought her for a very high price. He then freed, and married her. Soon after being elected king some more, he died, and Bathilde became reigning queen of the entire Frankish (“Merovingian”) empire.

I, Former Slave, Queen Of the Franks, Abolished Slavery

I, Former Slave, Queen Of the Franks, Abolished Slavery

[Luxembourg Garden, French Senate, Paris, Bathilde’s Capital.]

Queen Bathilde proceeded to buy and free slaves, first from her own treasury. Slavery was disapproved by the Frankish Church. It subsisted among the rich and mighty, and in the countryside. Bathilde lowered taxes on peasants so that they would stop selling their own children (the more children they had the less taxes they paid).

Then Bathilde’s French government outlawed the slave trade within the empire. (Owning slaves per se was not outlawed, as it was too injurious and infuriating to mighty Gallo-Roman aristocrats.) Selling or buying slaves was outlawed.

Any slave stepping on Frankish territory was to be freed.

Bathilde’s three sons were all elected kings (she kept directing things, some have claimed ruthlessly, from a monastery near Paris, where she retired).

Bathilde was made into a saint by the Pope in 880 CE, 200 years after her death.

However, the slave trade was not outlawed in Frankish March States such as Venice. Venice merchants, would sell slaves for centuries from southern (present day) Ukraine to the Muslim Caliphate (both outside of the Imperium Francorum).

Yet, this is the foundational act of abolition of slavery. When the Franks invaded Great Britain in 1066 CE, under the Duke of Normandy, they immediately outlawed slavery (more than 20% of England was enslaved).

Holding slaves anywhere in Western Europe was against the law, and stayed against the law. Slaves coming on European territory were freed.

Still there were two exceptions: one systemic, the other anecdotic.

Portugal had been occupied, for centuries, by the Islamists. Islam made slavery legal (although one could do whatever to obedient slaves, there were laws, slaves who tried to escape were typically impaled, to instruct their fellows, as they squirmed sometimes for days). Once freed, the Portuguese king asked the Pope for permission to enslave Africans. That was accorded.

The other exception came within Paris in the 18C: the leaders of the American rebellion held slaves in France, and were told by the French King’s police that they had to cease and desist (Jefferson, future third president of the USA, weaseled his way out)


Culprit of the African Slave Trade: African, American & European Potentate & Plutocrats:

I have to excuse the French Prime Minister: a Catalan of Spanish citizenship, he became French only when he was 20, and apparently history was not taught where he came from.

Catalonia was freed from Islamist potentates in the Eight Century by a Frankish army led by Charlemagne himself. So Catalonia became part of the empire of the Franks, slavery was outlawed, and Catalans such as French Prime Minister Valls ought to know their history. But they don’t.

How come the French and Catalans completely ignore the abolition of slavery in the Seventh Century?

Today, from the other side of the planet from France, I opened TV5Monde, the French TV. A banner blared “Commemoration de l’Abolition De L’Esclavage”. By this French leaders, the president, the PM, and the president of the Senate, meant the outlawing of the “traite des noirs”, a three ways trading system also used by Britain, Portugal, Spain, the USA, etc.…

In this system goods were sold by European plutocrats to African potentates who exchanged said goods against slaves who were then sold to plutocrats of European origin who, by then, had become colossal exploiters of the Americas producing massive quantities of sugar, tobacco, precious metals, etc.

In 1794, under the First French Republic, slavery was abolished in overseas French territories. It is instructive to realize that this had to be repeated in 1848, and why.

Slavery overseas was reintroduced by the dictator Napoleon in 1802.

So Valls, Taubira, Hollande and other well-meaning clowns: you want to condemn erroneous history? Then throw Napoleon’s ashes down the Seine, or something. In any case, stop reverence for the SLAVE MASTER IN CHIEF. Throw him out of the Invalides.

The Second French Republic re-established the abolition of the overseas slave trade.

Do the French know their own history? No. That is pretty bad, because deep French history is THE deep history of Western Democracy.

That slavery was outlawed by Western Civilization in the Seventh Century provides a metric with which to measure civilization.

That Napoleon was a criminal against humanity ought to be taught.

That fact, presently occluded, explains a lot of subsequent abuses against civilization. Why? Napoleon is still widely admired (differently from his imitator, Adolf Hitler). Worldwide, not just by the clueless French.

The other day, I had a heated argument with a francophobic, yet very educated American (USA) woman. She told me France was now despicable, irrelevant, although France used to be great in the time of Napoleon. Wrong. Napoleon was a monster, he should be despised.

You want to teach slavery right? Teach Napoleon right. You want to learn from the past? Learn about Napoleon. Yes, French revolutionary armies freed the Jews in Germany, and Napoleon let that stand. However, as the Corsican dictator e re-established slavery, it is no wonder that Metternich and other German speaking leaders re-established the enslavement of the Jews after Napoleon’s defeat.

Learning just a bit of history always lead to imbalanced minds.

History ought to be told right; in full, to the best of our knowledge.

Ignoring the Frankish empires, and the world’s most advanced constitutions which they imposed by force, which forged Western Civilization is not just incoherent, and stupid, it is criminal. Because, you people who go around admiring Napoleon and his institutions, deep down, what you admire is slavery, Napoleon’s unique contribution against the flow of progress, and, thus, you are not just hypocrites, but ridiculously ineffectual.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , , , , , , ,

14 Responses to “A Truth: FRANCE OUTLAWED SLAVERY 1355 YEARS Ago”

  1. gmax Says:

    More biting, please! What do you think of compensating great great grand children of slaves? Shall the part of them which enslaved the other pay a heavy price?

    Liked by 1 person

  2. EugenR Says:

    Dear Patrice, I disagree with your very one sided statement about Napoleon. You wrote: …. Napoleon was a criminal against humanity ought to be taught.

    That fact, presently occluded, explains a lot of subsequent abuses against civilization. Why? Napoleon is still widely admired (differently from his imitator, Adolf Hitler). Worldwide, not just by the clueless French
    …..France used to be great in the time of Napoleon. Wrong. Napoleon was a monster, he should be despised……

    To my opinion Napoleon was much more than that. First he was child of the French revolution, and as such he was penetrated by the ideas of the Revolution. French revolution was not only about politics of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity and was more than Robespierre, Marat, Fouche and other murderers, it was also about letting new scientific ideas to enter the major stage of the history. Why would Napoleon invade Egypt, if not because of his intellectual interest in antics. The result of his invasion was establishing Egyptology, a whole new science and of course the Rosetta Stone. Also his attitude towards statehood management and military was rational and modern for his time, full of new initiations, courage, charisma and military skill. He was in a way unlucky that the steam power was developed ausgerechnet in Great Britain and not in France. If opposite, most probably he would recognize the great potential of this media and utilize it.
    If to characterize Napoleon, he was in first place a military adventurer, who was ready always to risk all, to try to achieve a victory. His victory in Austerlitz has lot to do with his extraordinary skill to have a right perspective of the battle field, but also with luck and incompetence of the old style military leadership.
    He changed for ever how wars are fought, what it means military power and how a state should be governed. After Napoleon the statehood couldn’t remain to be a private estate of few aristocrats, who for generations inherited their Plutocratic position, without any contribution to the society. He brought ideology of nationalism, (for good and for bad), as an idea that can recruit people under one flag and as a force to be reckon with. Also it is important to mention that Naploen is after all man of his time, and of eighteen, beginning of nineteen century, and couldn’t resists the temptation of entering the human history on the waves of fairytales.
    Europe and consequently the world would be very different without Napoleon. What Napoleon did not know, is that political power corrupts, and absolute political power absolutely corrupts. (or maybe he knew, but felt to be above it).
    Napoleons fall started with his coronation by the pope, which was in a way act of his attachment to the history. He in a way saw himself as the modern Charlemagne. Ironically his downfall started with the great victory in Austerlitz. There he started to see himself as a being destined to govern the world. Or maybe it was earlier? Maybe with his coronation? Hard to say. Anyway he had the chance to do it right path but he has chosen the wrong one.
    Of course he was as inhumanly criminal as anybody else in his position at that time. And after Austerlitz he thought that nothing can stop him. This is when he lost his right tactical but also strategic vision and made many unfortunate mistakes. His focusing in trying to decimate GB as competing superpower, his invasion to Spain, and finally of course his invasion to Russia were huge mistakes and devastating. Not to speak about selling Luisiana to Jefferson for nuts, and enabling him to fix the slavery as a wide spread economic tool in the southern states of US.
    You can say, it is easy to criticize him now from the perspective of 200 years. But i think, if he would be more attentive to the advise from other people, let them freely speak out, like Talleyrand, some of his main strategic mistakes wouldn’t have to happen.
    His continuous urge to be involved in new wars, could have been satisfied with a different strategy. For example, if he could focus his efforts in Balkans and freeing the Greeks, the Bulgarians and Serbs from the Ottoman rule. These nation would adore him for it. He could weaken the Ottoman empire, and threaten this way the British, if he had such a big urge to do it. He could even occupy the eastern and northern parts of modern Turkey, (including Constantinople- Byzantine- Istambul), at the time with great Christian Greek and Armenian population. This would probably change the curse of history for better. This could unite Europe. Balkans was at the time, very much as in these days too, sphere of Russian interest. The Russians saw themselves as patrons of the Eastern Christians in their essence. Maybe they would even agree to strake a deal with the Russians to let Poland to be part of Bonapartic European Union, and not part of the Russian Eastern-Byzantine kingdom. Of course all this is only speculation about alternative history. What if. (Wenn das Wörtchen wenn nicht wär wär mein Vater Millionär). Yes, i was swept away with my fantasy. Napoleon could have done the world to a better place, but instead he made it to a worst place. Hitler, Stalin and even the rise of militaristic Islam are all results of his strategic mistakes.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      All right, I lay it thick upon Napie boy. As I did against Joan of Arc, or Louis XIV. Or Saint Louis. Yet, these three boys (not the girl) were clearly criminals against humanity. Joan of Arc is only culprit of High Treason and restarting a war that lasted another 400 years…

      Napoleon was actually the scion of a Pluto family from Corsica. Corsican Plutos are more amusing, the place being smaller, and prone to independence (that’s charming).

      True Nap freed and protected the Jews. And that was totally excellent. All the more as they were subject to Nazification immediately after Nap’s defeat in 1815.

      However, think about it: had Nap not existed, the French Republic would have kept on existing, and if well managed, would not have been defeated. In which case brotherly republics over Eastern Europe would have installed the Enlightenment durably, instead of having to wait for the European Union, 150 years later (actually the German nationality code was changed, under French pressure, in the last few years!)

      I will read more of your comment as I free time to do so, got to run…

      Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Steam power, and the first steam boat was actually a French inventor invention, and he was a university professor in Germany, 100 years BEFORE Napoleon polluted the intellectual environment.
      Papin’s successful boat was destroyed by Jihadists (Christian Jihadists, that is).

      The belated development of French discoveries in France is directly attributable to Christian Jihadists, and the top ones were Louis XIV, Napoleon the Slave Master, etc….

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Napoleon and all the rest | EugenR Lowy עוגן רודן Says:

    […] https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/05/10/a-truth-france-outlawed-slavery-1355-years-ago/ […]

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Richard Kokemoor Says:

    I first came upon the history of Queen Bathilda in a book on Christian history by Rodney Stark. I was so taken with her story, which tends to be idealized in articles referring to her as Saint Bathilda, that I did a fair amount of reading on line on the subject. Clearly hear great accomplishment, though religiously motivated, was political in nature. Your article is the best I have seen in relating her to the larger history of slavery and abolitionism. Thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hello Richard, welcome and thank you. I am very happy that you appreciate my article. I write from a mysterious need to communicate, probably something about the human species. So, even when I sound not very nice, the idea is to give something to others, and it’s crucial that I get the impression that somebody notices.
      Civilization owes much, crucially much, to the machinations of the Franks, in the four centuries before Charlemagne’s birth. For several reasons having to do with relatively recent dirty politics (such as the 1789 Revolution, which did not want to say anything nice about the past), those Merovingian Franks are presently not receiving the attention they merit. It’s our loss. Because we can extract lots of wisdom from their adventures, wars and legislation.

      Outlawing slavery forced Francia (and its neighbors such as England after 1066) into the world’s highest tech (that meant ever more effective breeds of domestic animals, a trend started by the Ancient Greeks). Anyway, hoping to hear from you again…

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Enslaved, But Saved? | Patrice Ayme's Thoughts Says:

    […] trade, not “Western Civilization”. The average European knew nothing about slavery. Indeed, slavery had been unlawful in (what the Franks called) “Europe” for a millennium, thanks …. Plutocrats organize a lot of lucrative horrors nowadays, far from prying […]

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Alex from Carlisle Says:

    Yes, when the Normans invaded England they may have thieved the land, committed genocide and subjected the English to many ethnic humiliations, but at least they got rid of slavery — the practice of which was dying out in 11th c. England anyway. Of course, they replaced that system with serfdom, making previously freemen little better than slaves, and also nailed the country down with castles to keep everyone in line, with wonderful new dungeons to keep prisoners in, but heigh ho! at least they ‘saved’ us from slavery.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hello Alex, thanks for the comment. Your comments shall go through without “moderation” from now on.
      The “Domesday” book, a general survey conducted after the one year long conquest, showed 20% of the population was enslaved. I don’t believe 20% can be viewed as “dying out”. Notice that France outlawed the slave trade around 655 CE, but it took generations for slavery to become insignificant.

      “Serfdom” was not slavery. It was a mutual obligation network… With the plutocrats increasingly advantaged, true. However, if a slave fled the land it was assigned to for more than 29 days, he/she became free (of said obligations), so a serf no more. Land attributions were made according to a system still use today in Africa, by the village head. So barbaric way of imposing serfdom found in distant corners of Europe (droit de cuissage, etc.) were not the rule. In theory, lords had to respect the law: Saint Louis made that very clear by the late 13C.

      England and France were sister kingdoms, and the reforms in England (direct oath to king, magna carta, bigger and better Parliament) were pretty much Franco-French affairs, that’s the paradox about English democracy. The inter-influence went on, as the French tried to duplicate (Fronde) the revolt of Parliament in England (it failed because French Queen Anne d’Autriche succeeded to fight off what she called “the Republique”… During her “regency”)

      Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      A few precisions:
      From Wikipedia, showing that England was rather controlled by “Dark Vikings”, namely the Danes. Marriage in the house of Normandy helps explain William’s assent. The future king of England took refuge inside Normandy for like two decades, when he promised his relative William, himself a “bastard” (his mom being just a businesswoman) the throne (as he had no child; Harold, the richest man in England, had also agreed, when in Normandy, and then came back on his word (say the Normans) …

      In 1003, the Danish King Sweyn Forkbeard started a series of raids against England. This culminated in a full-scale invasion that led to Sweyn being crowned king of England in 1013.[30][31] Sweyn was also king of Denmark and parts of Norway at this time.[32] The throne of England passed to Edmund Ironside of Wessex after Sweyn’s death in 1014. Sweyn’s son, Cnut the Great, won the throne of England in 1016 through conquest. When Cnut the Great died in 1035 he was a king of Denmark, England, Norway, and parts of Sweden.

      Upon the death of Cnut on 12 November 1035, Harold’s younger half-brother Harthacnut, the son of Cnut and his queen Emma of Normandy, was legitimate heir to the thrones of both the Danes and the English. Harthacnut, however, was unable to travel to his coronation in England because his Danish kingdom was under threat of invasion by King Magnus I of Norway and King Anund Jacob of Sweden. England’s magnates[4] favoured the idea of installing Harold Harefoot temporarily as regent or joint monarch, due to the difficulty of Harthacnut’s absence, and despite the opposition of Godwin, the Earl of Wessex, and the Queen, he eventually wore the crown. There is some dispute in primary sources (the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle) about Harold’s initial role. Versions E and F mention him as regent, the others as co-ruler.[5][6]

      Ian Howard points out that Cnut had been survived by three sons: Svein, Harold, and Harthacnut. The Encomium Emmae Reginae also describes Edward the Confessor and Alfred Aetheling as the sons of Canute, though the modern term would be step-sons.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Gary Sullivan Says:

    Patrice, I want to thank you for sharing your knowledge. Reading your essays has made my life better. What a joy it must have been for your students to listen to your lectures. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

    It is a remarkable experience, like a mental gymnasium learning from you. Yes, sure, I have fact checked many of your essays, always true.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      You are more than kind, Gary!, and I thank you for the bottom of my heart! Yes, some students’ effusive thanks were among the most praised experiences I was ever gifted! And a source of strength forever after… I still remember some gratitude as if it were expressed yesterday…. So your praise contributes to this edifice, for better, or worse as some may say…

      Liked by 1 person

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: