the other face of slave labour: provision grounds and ...€¦ · the other face of slave labour:...

55

The Other Face of Slave Labour: Provision Groundsand Internal Marketing in Martinique

DALE W. TOMICH

The slaves' working activity was not confined tothe production of export commodities. Theplanters of Martinique were under constantpressure to reduce the costs of their operations.The easiest and most readily available means todo this was simply to squeeze more out of theslaves. The latter were obliged to produce fortheir own subsistence in their 'free' time, that isoutside the time devoted to producing theplantation's commercial crop. Instead ofreceiving the legally required amounts of foodand clothing, the slaves were commonly givenplots of marginal land and a free day onSaturday in order to provide for at least aportion of their own consumption needs ontheir own accounts. (Some planters gave onlyhalf a day on Saturday and continued to supplya part of the slaves' rations themselves.) Byencouraging the slave to work for himself, themaster could avoid the effort and expense of thelarge-scale cultivation of provisions. Instead, hehad to furnish only some clothing, a fixedweekly ration of salt meat or fish and perhapsrum, and occasional medical care.'

This arrangement directly benefited themaster, because the expense of maintaining theslave population placed a heavy economicburden on him. Goods imported forconsumption were always expensive and theirsupply was often irregular, while both land andtime for provision cultivation emerged almostnaturally • from the conditions of sugarproduction itself. The planters perceived it intheir interest to spend as little money, time, orenergy as possible on slave maintenance. Thisperception did not change appreciably, at leastas long as the slave trade lasted, and for many itwent beyond the end of the slave trade and evenof slavery itself. Allowing the slaves to producefor their own subsistence from resources already

at hand instead of purchasing the necessaryitems on the market represented a saving to themaster and a reduction of the cash expenses ofthe estate. The burden of reproduction costswas shifted directly to the slaves themselves, andthey were kept usefully employed even duringperiods when there was no work to be done onthe sugar crop. Althouth it meant that after longhours of toil in the canefields the slaves had towork still more just to secure the basicnecessities of life; many planters hoped that itwould give them a stake in the plantation andinstill i"egular habits and the virtues of work andproperty.^

The possibility of self-organized subsistenceproduction emerged from the contradictorynature of the slave relation itself. The samesocial relation that shaped labor as a mass,disciplined, cooperative force also created thepossibility for autonomous individualsubsistence production and marketing by theslaves. The commodification of the person ofthe laborer compressed these two kinds of labor— commodity production and the reproductionof the labor force — into the same social spaceand defined the relation between them. Slaverythus made possible, and in some respects evenrequired, the development of provision cropcultivation by the slaves as a means of reducingor avoiding market expenditures for theirmaintenance. But this labor of reproductiondeveloped within the antagonistic relationbetween master and slave. For the master, theprovision ground was the means ofguaranteeing cheap labor. For slaves, it was themeans of elaborating an autonomous style oflife. From these conflicting perspectives evolveda struggle over the conditions of material andsocial reproduction in which the slaves were ableto appropriate aspects of these activities and

Slavery in the Circuit of Sugar: Martinique and The Wor¡d Economy, 1830-1848 (Baltimore, 1990), pp. 259-80.

743

744 Caribbean Slavery in the Atlantic World

develop them around their own interests andneeds.

These simultaneously complementary andantagonistic processes crystallized in thepractices and embryonic property relations thatSidney Mintz has described as the formation ofa 'proto-peasantry'. He uses this term tocharacterize those activities that allowed thesubsequent adaptation to a peasant way of lifeby people while they were still enslaved. AsMintz emphasizes, the formation of this proto-peasantry was both a mode of response and amode of resistance by the enslaved to theconditions imposed upon them by theplantation system. Thus, it was not a traditionalpeasantry attacked from the outside bycommodity production, the market economy,and the colonial state; rather, it was formedfrom within the processes of the historicaldevelopment of slavery and the plantationsystem. The cultivation and marketing ofprovision crops and the acquisition of thenecessary agricultural and craft skills emergedseemingly as a matter of course from theinterstices of the slave plantation. They wereinterstitial, not just in the sense that finalauthority over the use of the land and thedisposition of labor resided with the master, butalso because the time and space for suchactivities arose out of the rhythm of plantationlife and labor. These were not activities andrelations separate from the plantation systembut were intertwined with its logic; theydeveloped within, and were dependent upon, itstemporal and spatial constraints. Slaveprovision-ground cultivation was thusintimately linked to the organization of exportcommodity production and developed in closeassociation with it.'

Mintz has been primarily concerned todemonstrate the originality of the proto-peasantand subsequent peasant adaptations that wereprecipitated out of Caribbean slavery. I wouldlike to extend and qualify this concept byexamining the historical interrelation between-the various types of laboring activitiesperformed by the slave population. Rather thanlooking toward the formation of an indepen-dent peasantry, as some readers of Mintz havedone (though not Mintz himselO, I wouldsuggest that the focal point of the developmentof these autonomous cultivation and marketingactivities was the struggle between master andslave over the conditions of labor and of socialand material life within slavery. Beyond theformal juridical distinction between free andunf'ree labor, these activities indicate the sub-

stantive complexity of slave labor, whichcombined both 'proletarian' labor in thecanefields, mill, and boiling house, and the'peasant labor' of the provision ground. This'peasant' dimension of slave labor emergedwithin its 'proletarian' dimension and fornied acounterpoint to it. While provision-ground cul-tivation arose from the planter's attempts toreduce costs and create an interest for the slavein the well-being of the estate, its furtherelaboration depended upon the slaves' assertionof their own individual and collective needswithin and against the predominant slaverelation. The condition of the development ofautonomous provision-ground cultivation andmarketing was the slaves' appropriation of aportion of the estate's labor time. This strugglefor 'free' time entailed, and was reinforced andconditioned, by, struggles to appropriatephysical space and to establish the right toproperty and disposition over their own activity.In turn, the consolidation of slave autonomy inprovision-ground cultivation provided leveragefor more struggles over the conditions of staplecrop production. These interrelated practicestransformed and subverted the organization oflabor within slavery as they reinforced it.*

This process reveals both thecontradictoriness and the historicallydeveloping character of the master-slaverelation. As the assertion of slave autonomy hada continual tendency to push 'beyond' the limitsof the slave relation, the master was compelledto try to recapture and rationalize labor underthese changing conditions. Thus, for example,task work may be seen as an attempt to create anew, more effective form of labor disciplinewhose premise was autonomous slave self-interest. Industrial discipline depended on theexistence of provision grounds and adequatematerial incentives recognized by both parties,though meaning something different to each.Slave struggles for autonomy and planter effortsto contain them within the bounds of theprevailing relations of production developed theslave relation to its fullest extent and createdboth the embryo of post-emancipation classstructure within slavery and the conditions forthe transition to 'free labor'. Seen from thisperspective, the reconstruction of the post-emancipation plantation system.was not simplya unilateral and functional shift to a moreadequate and rational 'capitalist' form oforganization. Rather, it was a process whoseoutcome was problematic, requiring violenceand compulsion to recapture labor in the face ofmaterial and social resources acquired by the

The Other Face of Slave Labour 745

laboring population while still enslaved. Thestruggle over conditions of labor and of socialand material life was continued in a newhistorical context.

Slavery and Subsistence

While the slaves had been given small gardens tosupplement their rations since the beginning ofslavery in the French colonies, the practice ofgiving the slaves gardens and a free day eachweek to grow their own food was brought byDutch refugees from Pernambuco whointroduced sugar cane into the French Antillesduring the first half of the seventeenth century.The origins of this practice can be traced back toSao Tomé in the sixteenth century. Thus, thediffusion of sugar cane entailed not merely themovement of a commodity but the spread of awhole way of life. With the appearance of sugarcultivation in the French Caribbean, subsistencecrops for the slaves were neglected in favor ofplanting cane, and the 'Brazilian custom' wasrapidly adapted by planters eager to reduce theirexpenses. Masters no longer distributed rationsto their slaves. Instead, the latter were expectedto provide their own food, shelter, clothing, andother material needs from the labor of their'free' day.'

But this practice had negative consequences.Food production was chaotic, and the slaveswere often poorly nourished. Indeed, frequentfood shortages prevented the masters fromdispensing altogether with the distribution ofrations. Critics Of the custom of free Saturdaysclaimed that it gave the slaves too much freedomand encouraged theft and disorder. Themetropolitan authorities were in agreement withthe critics and sought both to stop what theyperceived to be the excesses resulting from thefree Saturday and to ensure adequate treatmentfor the slave population. The proclamation ofthe Royal Edict of 1685 (the Code noir) by themetropolitan govenment was the first attempt toestablish a uniform dietary standard for slavesin all the French colonies and to put an end tothe prevailing disorder. It sought to make themaster totally responsible for the maintenanceof his slaves and to prescribe standards for food,shelter, and clothing to be provided to theslaves. The practice of individual slave gardensand free Saturdays in lieu of rations was to besuppressed, and regular weekly food allowancesof determined composition and quanity (theordinaire) were mandated.'

This edict remained the fundamental

legislation governing slavery in the Frenchcolonies throughout the ancien régime. Thedistribution of slave rations seems to have beenmore widely practiced in Martinique thanelsewhere in the French Antilles, and the slavesthere had the reputation of being better fed thanelsewhere in the French colonies during theancien régime. Even so, the writings ofadministrators in Martinique throughout thecourse of the eighteenth century complaincontinuously that the slaveowners wereconcerned only with sugar, and if they provideda part of the slaves' nourishment, they obligedthem to secure the rest on their own account.The persistent failure to regulate slave diet andtreatment and especially to prohibit the practiceof slave provision grounds is evidenced by thesuccession of declarations, edicts, ordinances,regulations, and decrees, too numerous torecount, promulgated on these matters by bothmetropolitan and colonial authorities during theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Thecolonial authorities lacked the means to enforcethe regulations in a society dominated byslaveholders, who were usually hostile to anytinkering with their 'property rights',particularly if it cost them time or money.Planters expressed their preference for slaveself-subsistence, and the reluctance to spendmoney on slave maintenance, especially food,persisted throughout the ancien régime and intothe nineteenth century. Far from dying out, thepractice of free Saturdays and private provisiongrounds expanded and increasingly became anestablished part of colonial life during thoseyears.'

Ordinances enacted in 1784 and 1786 revisedthe Code noir and represent an importantattempt to ameliorate the lot of slaves andreconcile the law with the growing importanceof provision grounds in the colonies. Thepractice of the free Saturday was still forbidden,but, instead of prohibiting slave provisiongrounds, this legislation recognized theirexistence and attempted to regulate their use. Itdecreed that each adult slave was to receive asmall plot of land to cultivate on his or her ownaccount. However, the produce of these plotswas to supplement the ordinaire, not to replaceit. The distribution of rations was still requiredby the law. This prohibition against substitutingthe free Saturday for the legal ration wasrestated by the Royal Ordinance of October 29,1828, which reformed the Colonial Penal Code.However, the custom was stronger than the law,and ministerial instructions advised colonialauthorities to tolerate this ari^angement when it


was voluntary on the part of the slave."This legislation was a step toward recognizing

the realities of colonial life, but provision-ground cultivation was still regarded as only asupplemental activity, • and the slave codescontinued to insist on the distribution ofordinaire as the primary means of providing forslave maintenance. However, postwareconomic conditions made completedependence on the ration impractical, andscarcities caused planters to increase theirreliance on provision-ground cultivation.According to evidence presented before thecommission of inquiry into the sugar industry,before 1823 the majority of plantations couldonly rarely provide their slaves with theordinaire and had to abandon them to thenecessity of providing for their own subsistence,thus depriving themselves of the labor of theirslaves. In his testimony before the commission,Jabrun stated that the slaves were better fed,better dressed, and better housed than they hadbeen some years previously. However, he addedthat the lack of affluence and shortage of credit— and, consequently, the difficulty in obtainingprovisions opportunely — still caused someplanters to substitute the free Saturday for theration. De Lavigne testified that in general thispractice had ceased in Martinique. Almost allthe Negroes now received the quantity ofcodfish and other food prescribed by theregulations, and provision groundssupplemented the ration. While this claim seemsexaggerated. De Lavigne also suggests a cyclicalaspect of provision-ground cultivation. Incontrast to periods of low sugar prices, whenland and labor could be given over to provisiongrounds, with the high prices of the sugar boomof the 1820s many planters may have preferredto devote their attention entirely to sugarcultivation and purchase necessary provisions.Undoubtedly, a variety of individual strategieswere possible, and while the historicalcontinuity of provision-ground Cultivation maybe demonstrated for the colony as a whole, itmay not necessarily have been the case forindividual estates.'

Despite the shortcomings and abuses of thepractice of free Saturdays and slave provisiongrounds and the repeated attempts to suppressor regulate them, the scale of these activitiesincreased steadily, and by the nineteenthcentury they had become more and more centralto the functioning of the colonial economy. Bythe 1830s, the masters, with few exceptions,were encouraging their slaves to grow their ownfoodstuffs, and the substitution of free

Saturdays for rations had become widespread.The slaves were given as much land as they couldcultivate. They not only produced but alsomarketed their crops without supervision,' andthe colony became dependent upon theirproduce for a substantial portion of its food. Asone observer stated, 'The plantations whichproduce foodstuffs (habitations vivrières) andthe slaves who cultivate gardens more thanguarantee that the colony is supplied with localproduce.' Measures prohibiting these activitieswere disregarded with the common consent ofboth masters and slaves. Enforcement not onlywould have inhibited the efforts of theindependent slave cultivators but also wouldhave reduced the island's food supply.'"

By the 1840s, colonial authorities no longerregarded these practices as threats to order but,rather, felt that they contributed to socialharmony. The reports of local officialsparticularly stressed the social benefits ofindependent cultivation by slaves. One of themexpressed the opinion that the free Saturday wasan 'effective means of giving [the slave] the tastefor property and well-being, and consequently,to make them useful craftsmen andagriculturalists desirous of family ties.' Foranother, writing iri 1842, it means nothing lessthan bringing the slaves up to the standards ofthe civilized world: 'But the slaves, for whomthe custom of free Saturdays is established,prefer it to the ration because they work on theirown account and find some profit from thatstate of affairs. It is clear evidence that man,even though a slave, has an interest in moneyand likes to enjoy the fruits of his labors whilefreely disposing of that which belongs to him.The black is forced to enter into types of socialtransaction that can only serve as a means ofcivilizing him.' This latter aspect was seen to beespecially important because of the imminentprospect of emancipation. The reportcontinued: 'In this regard, the custom of thefree Saturday must be preferred to the legallysanctioned ration because, beyond everythingelse, it is a road toward free labor.'"

Thus, slavery, instead of separating the directproducers from the means of subsistence,provided them with the means of producing alivelihood. While the slaves acquired access tothe use of property and the, possibility ofimproving the material conditions of life, forthem the price of subsistence was work beyondthat required for sugar production. With thesedevelopments, the time devoted to the slaves'reproduction became separate from commodityproduction, and a de facto distinction between


time belonging to the master and time belongingto the slave was created. However, instead ofpermitting the rationalization of the laborprocess, this distinction blocked it. The relationbetween time devoted to commodity productionand time devoted to the reproduction of thelabor force became fixed and rigid. Theprevailing conditions of production werethereby reinforced. The economy of time andlabor was dissolved into the maintenance andreproduction ofa given body of laborers and theregular performance of a predeterminedquantity of labor: it thus resolved itself into àsocial-political question as the master-slaverelation was challenged from within.

The Self-Appropriation of theAppropriated

The successful development of autonomousprovision-ground cultivation and marketing inMartinique depended upon the response of theenslaved. It was the result ofthe slaves' adaptingto New World conditions and acquiring theskills and habits necessary to produce andmarket these crops. One contemporarydocument stresses the importance of culturaladaptation on the part of the slaves indeveloping subsistence agriculture and alsosuggests that slave provision grounds becamemore prevalent after the slave trade wasabolished.

Thus, previously, the progress of the population didnot take place in accordarice with the laws of nature.Each year, the irregular introduction of considerablenumbers of blacks increased the possibility ofa scarcefood supply in the country. These new arrivals in thecolonies, knowing neither the soil, the climate, nor thespecial agriculture of the Antilles, could not count onthemselves for their support. It was necessary toprovide sufficient and regular nourishment for them,but they had no skills to contribute. Thus, theproprietors were quite properly compelled to plant acertain amount of provisions since their slaves did notknow how or were unable to plant enough Theslaves required more prompt and rigorous discipline(than today) because of the savage stage in whichalmost all of them had been taken, their ignorance ofthe work of a sugar plantation, the tiring labor towhich they had perhaps not been accustomed, andtheir sorro\y for their country which could lead someofthem to commit crimes The slaves of today haveless need of constant tutelage than previously. Theyare able to supply themselves without depending uponthe generosity of their masters. The latter hardly plantprovisions at all any more because the slaves plantwell beyond the amount that is necessary forconsumption.

Indeed, nineteenth-century accounts indicatethat the slaves by and large preferred to have anextra day to themselves and to raise their ownprovisions rather than to receive an allowance offood from the master. 'This practice,' observedone government official, 'is completely to theadvantage of the slave who wants to work. Aday spent by him cultivating his garden or insome other manner, will bring him more thanthe value of the nourishment the law prescribesfor him. I will add that there is no atelier whichdoes not prefer this arrangement to theexecution of the edict [Code noir]. Once it hasbeen set, it would be dangerous for the masterto renounce it.''^

The provision grounds and 'proto-peasant'activities were not merely functional for thereproduction of the social and material relationsof the slave plantation. They also offered a spacefor slave initiative and self-assertion that cannotsimply be deduced from their economic form.Through them the slaves themselves organizedand controlled a secondary economic networkthat originated within the social and spatialboundaries of the plantation, but that allowedthem to begin to construct an alternative way oflife that went beyond it. In this process, thebonds of dependence of the slave upon themaster slowly began to dissolve, and theactivities of the slaves gradually transformed thefoundations of slave society itself. The changingrole and meaning of these activities was bothcause and response to the increased pressure onthe plantation system during the first half of thenineteenth century. While these practices hadexisted virtually since the beginning of slavery inthe colony, they assumed new importance withthe changing economic and political conditionsof those decades and the imminent prospect ofemancipation.

The reforms of the July Monarchy were a. decisive step in the recognition of existing

practices in the colonies and prepared the wayfor emancipation. The law of July 18 and 19,1845, known as the Mackau Law, allowed thesubstitution of provision grounds for theordinaire. While the land itself remained theproperty of the master, its produce belonged tothe slave, and the law recognized the latter'slegal personality and right to chattel property.The slaves could not represent themselves incivil action, but they had the right to administertheir personal property and dispose of it as theysaw fit in accordance with the civil code. Thislegislation confirmed and regularized what wasalready a customary practice and gave it thesanction of law. It thus extended the scope of


previous legislation and further legitimized theexisting custom. In the words of its authors,'The law only recognizes a state that has longexisted in practice and makes it a right to thegreat advantage of the black and withoutdetriment to the master.' These legallyenforceable rights were less precarious anddependent upon the proprietor's whim than wasthe previous custom. The slaves could now asserttheir purposes with the backing of the colonialstate. The authorities saw in these practices notthe source of disorder but the means to regulateslavery and provide a transition to free labor.The purpose of the legislation was to ease thetransition to freedom by giving slaves skills,property, and therefore a stake in society. 'Onthe eve of complete emancipation, it is in theinterest of the masters to see the taste for laborand the spirit of economy develop in the slaves.Now, without property there is no industriousactivity. It is only for oneself that one has theheart to work. Without property there is noeconomy. One does not economize foranother.'"

The Royal Ordinance of June 5, 1846,allowed the slaves to choose between theSaturday and the ordinaire. Upon request, eachadult slave over 14 years of age could have thedisposition of one free day per week to providehis or her own nourishment in place of theweekly ration. The minimum size of the plot tobe allotted to each individual slave was set at sixares for slaves on a sugar estate, four ares for acoffee plantation, and three ares for other typesof estates, and the master was not to makedeductions for plots claimed by other membersof the same family. The plot was to be locatedno more than one kilometer from the center ofthe plantation unless approved by theauthorities. In addition, the master was also tosupply the seeds and tools necessary to begincultivation for the first year, but he was notobliged to renew the supply of these items. Theextent of these plots could be reduced by half ifthe master could justify to colonial authoritiesthat the total arable land at his disposalcompared to the number of slaves made itnecessary. The slave could be made to leave theassigned plot only when (1) it had been at hisdisposition for at least a full year; (2) his harvestwas completed, and he had been advised not toplant again; and (3) a plot equivalent in size andas far as possible in quality was put at hisdisposal. Further, on the day reserved to him,the slave had the right to rent himself out, eitherto his master or to another proprietor in thecommune on the condition that he demonstrate

that his provision grounds were wellmaintained.'"

The slave who claimed a free day had toprovide only for his or her own personalnourishment from the provision ground. Thehusband, wife, children, or other familymembers to whom the disposition of a free daydid not apply were to continue receiving theordinaire, which this new legislation set at 6liters of manioc flour, 6 kilograms of rice or 7kilograms of corn, and 1̂ kilograms of cod orsalt beef for an adult slave over 14 years.(Although there were some complaints aboutthe lack of meat, all observers, includingabolitionists like Schoelcher, reported that thediet of the slaves who received the ordinaire wasadequate, if plain, and that planterssupplemented the legal requirements with saltand rice.) However, an arrangement could bemade between the master and the slave motheror father to replace the ration due to the childrenwith additional free time. In this case, the size ofthe plot allotted was to be increased by one-sixthfor each child over six years of age. But the rightto this supplemental land ended when the childfor whom it was claimed reached 14 years of age.Such arrangements also had to be submitted tothe local authorities for approval."

In order to prevent abuses of this system andto ensure adequate maintenance of the slaves,the request for the free day was to be madeverbally in the presence of four adult slaves ofthe atelier, and each planter was to present a listof the slaves on his estate to the justice of thepeace with an indication of those who requestedthe free day. The judge, on his own office or atthe planter's request, could void thearrangement when the slave was recognized asincapable of providing his nourishment by hisown labor, when he neglected the cultivation ofhis plot, or when he abused the time at hisdisposal. This arrangement could also besuspended or annulled at the slave's request, butin this case he could not claim the right to api'ovision ground again for at least six monthswithout showing sufficient motive to the justiceof the peace."

Table 1 indicates the extent of provision-ground cultivation and the practice of freeSaturdays in Martinique in the 1840s. However,it must be noted that these figures refer to thenumber of visits made by the inspectingmagistrates, not to the number of plantations orslaves in the colony. Many estates were visitedseveral times. Between May 1841 and May 1843,the colonial magistrates charged under the lawwith inspecting slave conditions made 968 visits


Table 1 Summary of Magistrates' Inspection Reports on SlaveConditions 1841-43

Number of plantations visitedSugarCoffeeProvision & minor cropsMixed crops

Total

Number of slavesBelow 14 years old14-60 years oldOver 60 years old

Total

Food distribution (by plantation)Legally prescribed rationFree SaturdayMixed regimeNo information

Clothing distribution (by plantation)Legally prescribed rationPartial rationNo distributionNo information

Gardens (by plantation)Well or adequately cultivatedPoorly cultivated •No gardensNo information

St.Piere

20538

11216

371

6,55614,491

1,520

22,567

672523319

244546013

304491412

Arrondissement

Fort Royal

30917610012

597

9,67021,548

2,173

33,391

129400608

25652

2872

384159486

Total

51421421228

968

16,22636,039

3,693

55,958

1966529327

500106347

15

688208=6218

Source: Ministère de la Marine et des Colonies, Exposé genérate des résultatsde patronage, pp. 89-90."Table gives figure as 200. Presumed addition error.

to plantations (of these, 514 were to sugarplantations, 214 to coffee plantations, and 240 toother types of plantation)."

With few exceptions, masters encouragedtheir slaves to grow their own foodstuffswherever possible. Among the estates includedin this sample, the practice of giving freeSaturdays to the slaves appears to have been farmore common than the distribution of thelegally prescribed ordinaire as the means ofproviding for slave subsistence. Thesubstitution of free Saturdays for the legalration was almost general throughout thecolony, while garden, plots were almostuniversal and appear to have existed even wherethe ordinaire was distributed. For example,according to one report, in Lamentin, wherefree Saturdays were denied on almost all theplantations and the slaves received the legalallotments, the slaves nevertheless kept well-

tended gardens and drew considerable revenuesfrom selling to the local markets. Alternatively,many planters, especially if they were well-to-do, like the owners of the large plantations inSainte Marie, preferrred to give rations to theirslaves rather than to allow them to cultivategardens independently. Not surprisingly, thedistribution of clothing allowances was morewidely practiced than food rations, although theplantation inspection reports reveal that manyplanters expected their slaves to provide theirown clothing as well as their food from theincome of their gardens. This practice wasespecially widespread among the lessprosperous planters, particularly in the poorersouthern arrondissement of Fort Royal. Onlyplanters who were well-off could afford to buyclothing to give to their slaves. Others could doso only when the harvest was good, if at all.Several public prosecutors objected to making


the slaves provide their own clothing andadmonished the planters to stop the practice.Thus, while there were diverse combinationsand possibilities of conditions of subsistence,the slaves appear to have provided a substantialamount of their maintenance through theirindependent labors beyond their toil in thecanefields, and the gardens and free Saturdayswere a widespread experience of the majority ofthe slaves."

However, not all parts of the island nor allplanters were amenable to the cultivation ofprovision grounds. The instances where therewere no gardens or where they were reported aspoorly cultivated appear to be overrepresentedin the arid and poorer southern part of the island(the arrondissement of Fort Royal). In Vauclin,Marin, Sainte Anne, Diamant, Anses d'Arlets,Trois Ilets, and parts of Carbet, dry weather andpoor soil prevented the slaves from producingenough to feed themselves and contributed tothe malaise of the plantations as well. In 1843, apublic prosecutor inspecting plantations inVauclin wrote: 'In the quartier, the masterscould not substitute the free Saturday forallowances of food without compromising theexistence of their ateliers. The drought and thequality of the soil would prevent the slaves fromsatisfying their needs by their own labor. Forseveral years, the products of some veryimportant plantations have not covered theirexpenses.'"

For even the most industrious slave, thepaternalism of the planter was inescapable. AsSchoelcher remarked, 'The greater or lesserwealth of the slaves depends a great deal on thebenevolence ofthe master.' Whichever mode ofproviding for the slaves was adopted, oneinspection report noted, 'their nourishment isassured everywhere, and the master is alwaysready... to come to the aid of the slave when thelatter has need of him.' Indeed, seasonalfluctuations cotild require the master to come tothe assistance of his slaves. 'In years of greatdrought,' de Cassagnac writes, 'subsistencecrops do not grow. Then planters whopreviously gave the free Saturday once againgive the ordinaire. Those are disastrous years.'™

Although the actual cultivation of the cropswas not subject to the direct discipline of theplanter, this labor could be compulsory.According to the inspection report of one publicprosecutor: 'the good or bad state of hisprovision is the doing ofthe slave. However, themaster can be accused of negligence if he doesnot use all the means of encouragement or ofcorrection in his power to compel the slave to

work for himself and thus improve his lot. Also,I have given my approval to those planters whohave told me that they are just as severe or evenmore so with the slave who will not cultivate hisgarden than with the one who will not work withthem.' But compulsion was not usuallynecessary, and often individual planters went togreat lengths to support the efforts of theirslaves. Sieur Telliam-Maillet, who managed theCeron plantation in Diamant, had the land thathis slaves were going to use for their provisiongrounds plowed. Even though he supplied hisslaves with the ordinaire, M. Delite-Loture, whoowned nearly 300 slaves in the quartier of SainteAnne, bought or rented land in the highlands ofRivière Pilote which he cleared so his slavescould work it for themselves. Each week, he hadthem taken nearly two leagues from theplantation to these gardens, and he paid for thetransport of their produce as well. Schoelcherreports that in some quartiers, the mastersprovided the slaves who worked such gardenswith tools, carts, mules, and a corvée ofworkers, and the masters and the slavecultivators divided the harvest in half. Othermasters considered such an arrangementbeneath their dignity and simply abandoned theland to the slaves.^'

According to Schoelcher, the garden was theprincipal source of well-being available to theslaves in Martinique. Customarily, slaves whowere given half a free day a week were given onlyhalf a ration, while those who received a full daywere to provide their food by themselves. Inaddition, Sundays belonged to the slaves andcould also be devoted to subsistence activities,as could rest periods and evenings during theweek. Schoelcher records that on a greatnumber of plantations in Martinique, thisarrangement had become a sort of exchangebetween the master and his slaves. 'Thistransaction', he writes, 'is very favorable for themaster who no longer has capital to lay out toensure the supply of provisions. And it isaccepted with good will by the black who inworking Saturday and Sunday in his gardenderives great benefits.'"

The slaves who wanted to plant gardens weregiven as much land as they could cultivate. Theprovision grounds were usually on theuncultivated lands on the margins of the estate,often scattered in the hills above the canefields.However, both de Cassagnac and Schoelcherwrite that some planters in the 1840s used thegardens to practice crop rotation. When thesugar cane had exhausted the soil in a field, theslaves were permitted to plant provisions there


until the land was again fit for cane. The gardenswere then shifted to other fields. (According tohistorian Gabriel Debien, larger gardens locatedaway from the slave quarters appeared onlyafter 1770, but these were still intended tosupplement the rations provided by the masterrather than to furnish the main items of the slavediet. The staples of the slave diet, manioc,potatoes, and yams, were grown by the masterin the gardens belonging to the plantation.) Theplots were frequently quite extensive, as much asone or two arpents, according to Schoelcher (1arpent = 0.S5 acre). All the available sourcesagree that the slave provision grounds were verywell kept. The produce of the gardens wasabundant, and the land was not allowed to standidle. Manioc, the principal source ofnourishment of the slave population, washarvested as often as four times a year. Besidesmanioc, the slaves raised bananas, potatoes,yams, and other vegetables on these provisiongrounds."

In addition to the provision grounds, therewere also small gardens in the yards surroundingthe slave cabins. They were intended tosupplement the weekly ration, not replace it,and all the slaves, including those who receivedthe ordinaire, had them. There the slaves grewsorrel (oiselte de Guinée), a type of squash(giraumon), cucumbers from France andGuinea (concombres de France et de Guinée),green peppers (poivrons), hot peppers (pimentz'oiseau), calabash vines (liane à calebasse),okra (petites racinesgombó), and perhaps sometobacco. They also planted fruit trees and, if themaster permitted, kept a few chickens there aswell."

The 'little Guineas', as the provision groundhave been called, allowed collective self-expression by the slaves and form what RogerBastide describes as a 'niche' within slaverywhere Afro-Caribbean culture could develop.The slaves had complete responsibility for theprovision grounds arid were able to organizetheir own activity there without supervision.The use of these parcels and their product wasnot simply a narrow economic activity but wasintegrated into broader cultural patterns. Thework of preparing the soil, planting, cultivating,harvesting, and the disposition of the productwere organized through ritual, kinship, andcommunity and were important aspects of slavelife as diverse as kinship, cuisine, and healingpractices. These activities provided an avenuefor the slaves to exercise decision making and todemonstrate self-worth otherwise closed off by.slavery. But, except for Schoelcher's vague

comment that the slaves cultivated them'communally', there is little detailedinformation on how the slaves organized theiractivities. This lack of documentation is perhapsmute testimony to the genuine autonomy thatthe slaves enjoyed in the conduct of theseactivities."

Even at best, the slaves who produced theirown provisions were exposed to risk anduncertainty. They were generally given land ofinferior quality that was incapable ofsupporting sugar or coffee. At times, theplanters deprived them of their free day undervarious pretexts. If for some reason they fell illand could not work, their food supply wasjeopardized. Drought or bad weather mightmake cultivation impossible. The prospect oftheft and disorder was then increased, and at theextreme the physical well-being of the laborforce was threatened.^'

Nevertheless, this arrangement could beadvantageous for an industrious slave. Accessto this property meant that the slaves'consumption was no longer entirely dependenton the economic condition of the master.Rather, they could use their free time and theproduce of their gardens to improve theirstandard of living. They demonstratedexceptional initiative and skill and used theopportunities presented to them to secure atleast relative control over their subsistence and adegree of independence from the master.According to one contemporary estimate, theincentive provided by the gardens doubled slaveoutput, while Higman's data suggest an inverserelation between provision-ground cultivationand mortality on Jamaican sugar estates. Withthe free day and the other free time that could behusbanded during the week during rest periodsand after tasks were finished, the slave couldproduce beyond his or her immediate sub-sistence needs. The slaves sold this produce inthe towns and cities and developed a network ofmarkets that was an important feature of theeconomic and social life of the colony. The saleof this surplus in the town market allowed theslaves to improve both the quantity and thequality of goods available to them and to satisfytastes and desires that the master could not.Thus, improvement in the slaves' well-being wasdue to their own effort, not to any ameliorationof the regime."

Of course, not all slaves were willing or able toendure the burden of extra work which theprovision grounds represented. Infants, theaged, the infirm, expectant mothers or thosenursing children — all those who could not


provide for themselves received a foodallowance from the master, even on theplantations where the slaves grew their ownfoodstuffs. Also included among this numberwere those slaves who refused to raise a garden.In Fort Royal, a public prosecutor wrote, 'Onlythe lazy receive a ration and they are almostashamed of it.' Of these 'lazy' slaves,Schoelcher commented. 'We do not want todeny, however, that there are many Negroeswho show a great indifference to the benefit offree Saturdays. It is necessary to force them to .work for themselves oh that day. It does notsurprise us that beings, saturated with disgustand struck by malediction, are litte concerned toimprove their lot during the moments of respitethat are given to them. Instead, they prefer tosurrender to idleness or become intoxicated tothe point of delirium from the melancholyagitation of their African dances.' The freeSaturday, while generally receivedenthusiastically by the slaves, was notuniversally accepted. For many slaves, it simplymeant more work, and they refused. Theywithdrew their voluntary cooperation and threwthe burden of maintenance back on the master.De Cassagnac expressed surprise that on manyplantations, if the slaves were given the freeSaturday, they would not work. They had, in hisview, to be treated like children and be forced towork for themselves. It was necessary to have adriver lead them to the gardens and watch themas carefully as when they were working for theestate.^*

Long before the promulgation of the MackauLaw, the slaves established rights andprerogatives with regard not only to the produceof the land but to the provision grounds andgardens themselves that the masters werecompelled to recognize. 'The masters no longeracknowledge any rights over the gardens of theatelier. The slave is the sovereign master over theterrain that is conceded to him,' admitted theColonial Council of Martinique. 'This practicehas become a custom for the slaves who regard itas a right which cannot be taken from themwithout the possibility of disrupting thediscipline and good- order of the ateliers,'reported one official. The slaves regarded theprovision grounds as their own. When theydied, the garden and its produce was passed onto their relatives. 'They pass them on fromfather to son, from mother to daughter, and, ifthey do not have any children, they bequeaththem to their nearest kin or even their friends,'wrote Schoelcher. Often, if no relativesremained on the estate, it was reported that

kinsmen came from other plantations to receivetheir inheritance with the consent of the master.Here as elsewhere the autonomous kinshiporganization of the slave community served as acounterpoint to the economic rationality of theplantation, and the master was obliged torespect its claims.™

The slaves defended their rights even at theexpense of the master, and there was often asubtle game of give-and-take between the twoparties. While traveling through the quartier ofRobert, Schoelcher was surprised to find twosmall patches of manioc in the midst of a large,well-tended canefield. M. Tiberge, theproprietor, explained that the slaves had plantedthe manioc when the field had been abandoned.When he wanted to cultivate the field he offeredto buy the crop, but they demanded anexorbitant price. The master then called uponthe other slaves to set what they considered to bea fair price, but this too was rejected by theslaves who had planted the manioc. 'I'll have towait six or seven months until that damnedmanioc is ripe,' Tiberge continued. Anotherplanter, M. Latuillerie of Lamentin, uponreturning from a long trip, found that his slaveshad abandoned the plots allotted to them infavor of his canefields. He could not simplyreclaim his land, bat instead he first had to agreeto give the occupants another field. Schoelcheralso observed large mango trees in the middle ofcanefields which stunted the cane plants in theirshadow. The masters would have cut themdown, but they remained standing becatise theywere bequeathed to some yet-unborn slave. Hecontinued, 'There are some planters who do nothave fruit trees on their plantations becausetradition establishes that such and such a treebelongs to such and such a Negro, and they (theplanters) have litte hope of ever enjoying thembecause the slave bequeaths his tree just like therest of his property.'^"

The Fruits of Their Labour

Beyond filling the personal consumption needsof the slaves, the provision grounds produced amarketable surplus of food that was sold to theplantations and in the towns and cities. Themain source of revenue for the slaves was thesale of manioc flour and other agriculturalproducts, and among the main customers werethe plantations themselves. Almost all of themanioc consumed on the majority of mediumand large estates was purchased from the slaves.The planters bought these provisions to replace


or supplément provisions cultivated as an estatecrop and to distribute as rations to those slaveswho were unable to provide their own food. Theabundance of slave produce, especially in theyears when agricultural conditions werefavorable, caused the price of provisions on thelocal markets to fall sharply. When thishappened, the more prosperous planters boughtmanioc flour from their slaves at a constantprice above that of the market and, according toDe Moges, gave it right back to them as a ration.One official observed that 'every time thatmanioc flour is cheap, the master buys it fromthem, usually at a price above the market price.Sometimes he pays double the market price.'The report of a deputy public prosecutor in 1843describes the difficulties caused by low provisionprices:

The worthless price to which provisions, especiallymanioc flour,... sometimes falls causes even the mostindustrious slave to become disgusted with labor. Inthese circumstances, many masters, 1 believe onecould say the majority of them, come to the aid oftheir slaves, buying from them the quantity of flourwhich is necessary for the needs of their plantations ata price well above the market price. But sometimes thediscouragement of men whose hopes for a better pricefor their labor have been betrayed is such that they donot plant at all in the following year. Thus dearthoften follows abundance.

By subsidizing their slaves' production in hardtimes, the planters hoped to encourage them tocontinue growing provisions and thereby avoida scarcity that would drive prices up, increasethe colony's reliance on food imports, anddisrupt general economic activity. Instead, theycould keep prices low and guarantee a stablesupply of essential provisions by supporting themarket."

The slaves also developed a network ofmarkets beyond the plantation that was animportant feature of the economic and sociallife of Martinique, and the colony came to relyon the produce of the slave gardens for asubstantial portion of its food. Importantmarket towns such as the ones at Lamentin,François, Trinité, and Robert attracted slavesfrom all parts of the island and brought theminto contact with the world beyond theplantation. Soleau describes the Lamentinmarket: 'This town is one of the most frequentlyvisited by the slaves of the colony. It has a fairlylarge market where they come to sell theirproduce on Sunday. I have been told that thenumber of slaves that gather there is often ashigh as five or six thousand. I passed through

there that day while going to the quartier ofRobert, and encountered many blacks on theroad who were going to the town. All werecarrying something that they were doubtlesslygoing to sell — manioc flour, potatoes, yams,poultry, e tc ' Sunday was the major market dayin the towns; however, smaller markets wereheld on other days. These markets allowed themasters to have their slaves acquire goods thatwere not available on the plantation and wouldotherwise have to be purchased. An astonishingvariety of goods were exchanged at the townmarkets. These, of course, included manioc,fruits, vegetables, yams, fresh or salted fish,animals, and slave handicrafts, but alsomanufactured goods such as shoes, dry goods,porcelain, crystal, perfume, jewelry, andfurnittire. Undoubtedly, barter played a largepart in these exchanges, especially in localmarkets, but the money economy wassignificant, and prices were set in major townsfor the main articles of trade. The scale ofexchanges at these town markets was so greatthat they caused the urban merchants tocomplain, but, in the words of Sainte Croix,they were nevertheless a great resource for theinterior of the island."

The Sunday market was as much a socialevent as an occasion for exchanging goods.Slaves went to town to attend mass, meet friendsfrom other parts of the island, drink tafia,smoke, eat roast corn, exchange news andgossip, and perhaps dance, sing, or gamble. Itwas an opportunity for display, and the slaveswore their best. One observer paints a strikingpicture of the appearance made by the slaves atthe Lamentin market: 'These slaves are almostalways very well dressed and present the exteriorsigns of material well-being. The men havetrousers, shirts, vests, and hats of oilskin orstraw. The women have skirts of Indian cotton,white blouses, and scarves, some of which areluxurious, as well as earrings, pins and evensome chains of gold.' According to Soleau, thesigns of prospefity presented by the slaves ofMartinique on market day were unusual in theCaribbean and even in rural France: 'One thingstruck me that I have never seen in Cayenne,Surinam, or Demerara. It is the cleanliness andthe luxury of the clothing of the slaves that Iencountered. The lazy, having-nothing to sell,remained on the plantations, but in France,generally, the peasants, except for their shoes,were not better di'essed on Sunday and did notwear such fine material.'"

The colorful and bustling marketspunctuated the drudgery and isolation of


plantation life. Slaves from town and country,young and old, male and female, as well asfreedmen, sailors, merchants, planters —anyone who wanted to buy or sell — mingled inthe crowds. Such gatherings were potentiallydangerous and posed a threat to order andsecurity in a slave society, as Governor Mathieurecognized: 'I have posted thirty men and anofficer at St. Esprit. This measure was welcomedby the entire commune. St. Esprit is a center ofcommerce. A great number of people, includingmany strangers, gather there for the marketsthat are held each week, especially on Sundays.Thus, police measures are necessary and arelinked to those that have been established toprevent bad subjects from stirring up the ateliersand inciting unrest.'"

These markets offered incentives to the slavesand enabled them to improve the materialconditions of life as well as to acquire skills,knowledge, and social contacts that increasedtheir independence and allowed them to asserttheir individuality and vary the texture of theirlives. Their initiative led to the development ofnew economic and social patterns and themobilization of productive forces that otherwisewould have remained dormant.

They were able to obtain money and topurchase a range of goods that would otherwisebe unavailable to them. Particularly importantwere items of clothing, and the more industriousslaves were able to forgo the ration and providefor themselves. According to one inspectionreport: 'In general, the slaves are well-dressed.The most industrious of them renounce thedistribution of clothing and are well enough offto consider it a disgrace to ask the master for ashirt or a pair of trousers. On the other hand, thelaziest of them sometimes oblige the masters togive them more than the regulations prescribe.'With the ability to acquire their own clothing,dress became an important expression ofindependence and status during their free time.While they were working, the slaves dressedpoorly. Schoelcher marveled at the tatters theywore. But on 'their' time the slaves' appearancecould undergo a drastic transformation. OnSundays or special occasions, the slaves worefrock coats and well-made outfits with satinvests, ruffled shirts, boots, and the ever-presentumbrella. A public prosecutor described theappearance of slaves at a New Year's celebrationon one plantation: 'The costumes, of somedancers were luxurious so to speak. For thewomen, there were skirts of fine material,cambric shirts, coral or jet necklaces, and goldearrings. For the men, costumes of' linen or

broadcloth. Shoes had been abandoned asunnecessary encumbrances.' Another attorneyreported a runaway slave who wore a blackfrock coat, boots, and a new silk hat, and whopassed for a freedman for several days.'Meeting them like this,' wrote Schoelcher, 'one.does not suspect that they are the same men thatwere seen the day before working in rags.' Bootsor shoes were an especially important statussymbol among the slaves. In the early days ofthe colony, they were forbidden to wear shoes.Although these ordinances were no longerenforced, most slaves went barefoot.Schoelcher wrote that it was not uncommon tomeet a well-dressed slave on the road to towncarrying his shoes and putting them on onlyafter his arrival."

Household goods also figured prominentlyamong the items bought by the slaves. The moreprosperous of them often furnished their cabinselaborately. Commentators on slave conditions,both official and unofficial, in favor of slaveryand opposed to it, noted such articles as chairs,tables, chests of drawers, mirror wardrobes,and even four-poster beds with pillows, sheets,and mattresses. However, as Schoelcheremphasized, such relative luxury could be foundonly among a privileged few such as artisans andcommandeurs. The less prosperous had only abroken-down bedstead, a chair or bench, somecrockery, a cooking pot, a storage box or two,and an earthen floor, while the poorestpossessed only a cooking pot, a board or mat tosleep on, a bamboo stalk to store water, and afew pieces of tattered clothing hanging from astring stretched across the room."

The slaves often made great efforts to increasetheir property during their free time, and in theprocess they developed a variety of skills. Manyslaves raised chickens, rabbits, pigs, sheep,cows, and even horses. Slave-owned herds couldbe surprisingly large. In addition to theirprovision grounds, the slaves on the Lacouetplantation had 25 hectares on which to grazetheir animals. The slaves on the Fabriqueplantation in Rivière Salée owned 15 head ofcattle. The head carpenter on the plantation ofPeter Maillet in Saint Esprit personally ownedseven cows in addition to pigs, chickens, andrabbits, while the commandeur on the sameplantation had two horses. Schoçlcher reports aherd of 100 sheep belonging to the slaves of M.Douville on the neighboring island ofGuadeloupe. Slaves also found other means ofaugmenting their income or acquiring propertyif circumstances did not permit them to haveprovision grounds. Where the soil was poor and


little garden produce could be grown, slaves cutwood and made charcoal for sale. Fishing wasan important resource for slaves near the coast,although their activities were curtailed after1837 by an ordinance, designed to prevent slavesfrom escaping to freedom in the neighboringBritish islands, which forbade slaves to useboats. Slaves on plantations near towns cutguinea grass during their midday break andcarried bundles of it into the town to sell asfodder after work in the evening. A younglawyer from Martinique remarked toSchoelcher that the slaves sometimes walked asfar as a league with bundles of fodder weighingup to 75 livres merely in order to earn 20 francs amonth. Other slaves earned money by hiringthemselves out during their free time, either onor off the plantation. In the context of suchopportunities to earn money, any skills a slavecould acquire were an extremely importantresource. A notable example of this was a cookin Vauclin who acquired considerable wealth bypreparing most of the banquets in the quartier.He was given his freedom when his master died,and he bought his wife's freedom for 1,500francs."

The provision grounds could be veryprofitable for industrious slaves. Lavolléeestimated that the revenue from 1̂ hectares nearthe Pitons du Carbet, which was worked bythree male and three female slaves, was no lessthan 10 francs per day. Schoelcher wrote that aslave could earn between 200 and 400 francsyearly with free Saturdays — men a little moreand women a little less. An official source putsthe figure at 700-800 francs per year. One publicprosecutor reported that many slaves on oneexemplary plantation had savings amounting tomore than three times their purchase price buthad not thought of buying their freedom.According to another public prosecutor, theslaves at the Grand-Ceron plantation had18,000 francs in doubloons and quadruples,while a third attorney claimed that the slaves ofanother plantation had more than 5,000doubloons worth 432,000 francs. Suchestimates must be judged with caution, since wedo not know the basis upon which they weremade nor the number of slaves involved.Neither is it very likely that the slaves made ahabit of showing their money to visiting publicofficials. Nevertheless, it is certain that slaves inMartinique were able to accumulate substantialsums of cash as well as other property.'*

Perhaps the most surprising andextraordinary aspect of the independenteconomic life of the slaves in Martinique is that

some slaves used their earnings to hire otherslaves or freedmen to work in their gardens, anda few even owned slaves themselves. One publicprosecutor commented on the practice of slaveshiring other slaves and on the source of theirlabor force: 'The Negroes have as much land asthey can cultivate. It has reached the point thatseveral of them hire Negroes from outside orbelonging to the plantation to work in theirgardens. This supposes that the latter do notcultivate the land on their own account. In fact,on almost all the plantations there are lazy slaveswho do not have gardens. But these men, whocannot be motivated to work by the hope of aharvest for which one must wait several months,can be drawn by the lure of an immediate gain,at least to satisfy the needs of their moment.'Not only did slaves hire other laborers,including ft;ee men to work for them, but thereare also recorded instances of slaves owningother slaves. On the Perpigna plantation inVauclin, the commandeur owned a slave, butthis commandeur, like so many otherslaveowners, found that his slave was 'never asindustrious as he could be'. There were severalslaves on the plantation of Sieur Telliam-Mailletwho owned slaves. 'It is a reward from a masterwho is very happy with his slave,' wrote a publicprosecutor. 'He permits him to buy slaves toreplace him when he does not want to work,even in the master's fields.' This is probably theultimate expression of the slave's access toproperty in a slave society. With it the gapbetween slave and master, bondman and freeman, was narrowed considerably. But, at thesame time, such conditions cannot beexaggerated. The slave's access to property andthe opportunity for independent activity areextremely important for understanding thecontradictions of the slave system as well as therole of the slaves in shaping their New Worldenvironment. However, only a small minorityever acquired even moderate property, andindependence was always limited andconditional upon the benevolence of the master.The social distance between the mostprosperous and industrious slave and the mostimpoverished and recalcitrant slave was alwaysmuch less than between the former and the mostdestitute master."

This process of the slaves' appropriating thefree Saturday and elaborating these 'proto-peasant' activities had far-reaching conse-quences for the development of slavery in theFrench West Indies and was itself an aspect ofthe crisis of the slave system. It was an initiativeby a population that, over the course of its


historical experience, had learned to adapt tothe labor routine, discipline, and organizationof time of the slave plantation and confrontedslavery within its own relations and processes.The result was simultaneously to strengthen andto weaken the slave system. On the one hand,the slaves became more effectively integratedinto slavery and responsive to its rewards andpunishments. The operating expenses of theplantation were reduced, and a greater surpluswas available to. the planter. On the other hand,the slaves were able to appropriate aspects ofthese processes and to establish a degree ofcontrol over their own subsistence andreproduction. They claimed rights to propertyand disposition over time and labor that themasters were forced to recognize, and they wereable to resist infringements upon them. While itmeant more work for the slaves, they were ableto improve their material well-beingsubstantially and to increase their independencefrom the master. They restricted his capacity toexploit labor and presented a fixed obstacle tosurplus production. The amount of labor timeat the disposition of the planter was frozen, andthe slaves acquired a means of resisting theintensification of work at the very moment thatthe transformation of the world sugar marketdemanded higher levels of productivity andgreater exploitation of labor from French WestIndian planters.

In this process, the character of the slaverelation itself was altered. The assertion of theserights and the exercise of autonomy by the slavesreduced their dependence on the master andundermined his authority. Custom, consent,and accommodation assumed greater weight inthe conduct of daily life where coercion hadprevailed. The acquisition of skills and propertyand the establishment of economic and socialnetworks enabled the enslaved to realizeimportant material and psychological gains.The slaves thus began to fashion an alternativeway of life that played an important role notonly in eroding the slave regime but also informing a transition to a new society. In it can beseen nuclei of the post-emancipation socialstructure. Significantly, after emancipation thesystem of petty production and marketingorganized by the slaves was to play an importantpart in helping them to resist the newencroachments of plantation agriculture andshape a new relation between labor andcapital.""

The ability to elaborate autunomousprovision-ground cultivation and marketingwithin slavery provided the slaves with an

alternative to plantation labor afteremancipation and allowed them to resist itsreimposition. The very activities that theplanters had encouraged during slavery nowincurred their wrath. Carlyle scorned Quasheeand his pumpkin; but far from representing the'lazy Negro', it is a testimony to the capacity ofthe Afro-Caribbean population to learn, adapt,create, and articulate an alternative conceptionof their needs despite the harshness of slavery.Probably few could escape the plantationentirely after emancipation, but for the greatmajority of the freed slaves the existence ofprovision-ground cultivation and marketingnetworks enabled them to struggle effectivelyover the conditions of their labor. Jamaicanhistorian Douglas Hall suggests that uponemancipation the freed slaves sought to separatetheir place of residence from their place ofwork. Where planters tried to compel a residentlabor force, the workers left to establish freevillages on lands ofF the plantations. In eithercase, the skills, resources, and associationsformed through 'proto-peasant' activitiesduring slavery were of decisive importance inenabling the free population to secure controlover their own conditions of reproduction andto establish an independent bargaining positionvis-à-vis the planters."'

The immediate consequence of emancipationthroughout the French and British Caribbeanwas the withdrawal of labor, particularly thelabor of women and children, from theplantation sector, and struggles with theplanters over time, wages, and conditions ofwork in which the laboring population was ableto assert a great deal of independence andinitiative. It represented, in Walter Rodney'sexpression, an attempt to impose the rhythm ofthe village on the plantation. The successfulseparation of work and residence forced a newrelation of production and reproduction on theplantation system itself as the plantersattempted to recapture the labor of theemancipated population or find a substitute forit under conditions that guaranteedprofitability. This resulted in the formation ofnew coercive control over subsistence activitiesand petty commodity production to one degreeor another. This transformation of theplantation system and the tran$ition from oneform of coerced labor to another was not theinevitable result of unfolding capitalistrationality but rather is best understood as theproduct of the contradictory relation betweenproduction and social reproduction within therelations of slavery and of the struggle between


masters and slaves over alternative purposes,conceptions of needs, and modes oforganization of social and material life.* .̂

Notes

1. Pi.So\ea\i,NotessurtesGuyanesfrançaise,hollandaise, anglaise, et sur les Antitles françaises,(Cayenne, Surinam, Demérary, La Martinique, LaGuadeloupe) (Paris, 1835), pp. 9-10; Ministère de laMarine et des Colonies, Commission, 26 (1840), p. 205.

2. Félix SainteCfoix, Statistique de ¡a Martinique, Vol. 2(Paris, 1822), p. 105.

3. Sidney W. Mintz, Caribbean Transformations(Baltimore, 1974), pp. 132-33; Ministère de la Marine etdes Colonies, Exposé générât des résultats du patronage(Paris, 1844), pp. 303-05.

4. Walter Rodney, 'Plantation Society in Guyana',Review, 4, No. 4 (1981), pp. 643-66; Sidney W. Mintz,'Descrying the Peasantry', Review, 6, No. 2 (1982),pp.209-25.

5. Gabriel Debien, Les esclaves aux Antilles françaises.XVHe-XVllIesiècles, (Basse-Terre: Société d'histoirede la Guadeloupe; Fort-de-France, 1974), pp. 178-86;Lucien Peytraud, L'esclavage aux Antitles françaisesavant 1789 d'après des documents inédits des ArchivesColoniales, (Guadeloupe, 1973), p. 217.

6. Debien, op. cit., pp. 176-86; Peytraud, op. cit.,pp.216-24.

7. Debien,op. C/Í., pp. 176-77,181,183-86,215; AntoineGisler, L'esclavage aux Antilles françaises,XVIIe-X¡Xesiecles: Contribution auproblèmedel'esclavage (Fribourg, 1965), pp. 23-25, 35-38.

8. \i<:\.orS<:y\oe\i:her, Des colonies françaises: Abolitionimmédiate de l'esclavage (Paris, 1842), pp\ 8-9.

9. Ministère du Commerce et des Manufactures, Enquêtesur les sucres (Paris, 1829), pp. 23, 52, 67, 156, 248.

10. SainieCroix.Statistique.l.p. 105. P. LavoWée,Notessur les cultures et ta production de la Martinique et de laGuadeloupe (Paris, 1841), p. 10.

11. Ministère de la Marine et des Colonies, Exposé généraldes résultats du patronage (Paris, 1844), pp. 183-84,290.

12. ¡bid., pp. 104-05, 180-88, 290.13. Ministère de la Marine et des Colonies, Exposé général,

pp.177-88, 288-91, 332-33.14. Archives Nationales — Section Outre — Mer

(A.N.S.O.M.), Généralités 167 (1350).15. ¡bid.16. ¡bid.17. Ministère de la Marine et des Colonies, Exposé général,

pp.89-90.18. ¡bid., pp. 89-90, 182-85, 177, 219-25, 288-91, 332-33.19. Ministère de la Marine et des Colonies, Exposé général,

pp. 183-85; Gisler, op. cit., p. 48; Schoelcher, op. cit.,p. 7.

20. Ministère de la Marine et des Colonies, op. c/V.,Schoelcher, op. ai., pp. 12-13; A.N.S.O.M.,Martinique 7 (83), Dupotèt à Ministre de la Marine et

des colonies, Fort Royal, 5 April 1832.21. /Wrf.; Adolphe Granier de Cassagnac, Voyageaux

Antilles, (Paris, 1842), pp.174-75.22. Schoelcher, op. c//., p. 11; Lavollée, Wotoiur/es

cultures, p! 123.23. Debien, op. d/., pp. 178-91,205-07; Sainte Croix,

Statistique, 2, p. 105.24. Ministère de la Marine et des Colonies, Exposé général,

pp. 180-88; Schoelcher, op. cit., pp. 9-13; A.N.S.O.M.,Généralités 144 (1221); Debien, op. cit.,pp. 178-91 ;Mintz, op. cit., pp.225-50.

25. MelvilleHerskovits,¿//cmaWaiV/o/i Ka//ey(New York,1937), pp. 67-68,76-81 ; M. G. Lewis, Journal ofa West¡ndiaProprietor, ¡8¡5-l8l7(Boston, 1929), p. 88; RogerBastide, The African Religions of Brazil (Baltmiore,1978), p. 58.

26. Soleau, op. cit., pp. 9-10; Lavollée, Notessurlescutvures, p. 123.

27. Ministère de la des Colonies, Exposé général.pp. 110-188,305; Barry Higman, S/avcPopu/ai/onandEconomy of Jamaica. /Ä07 (Cambridge, 1976), p. 129;A.N.S.O.M., Martinique, 7 (83).

28. DeCassagnac, op. c/7., p. 176; Schoelcher, op. c/7.,p. 12.

29. Schoelcher, op. ci(., pp. 9-13; A.N.S.O.M.,Généralités, 144 ( 1221 ), Ministère de la Marine et desColonies, Exposé général, pp. 180-88, 290.

30. ¡bid.31. A.N.S.O.M., Martinique9(99); Schoelcher, op. c/V.,

p. II; Ministère de la Marine et des colonies,Commission 26, May 1840, p. 206.

32. Soleau, op. cit., p. 59; Herskovits, op. cit., pp. 81-85;. A.N.S.O.M., Généralités, 144(1221); A.N.S.O.M.,

Martinique 7 (83); Sainte Croix, Statistique, Vol. 2,pp. 13-15; M. Le Comte E. De la Cornillère, LaMartiniqueen 1842: Intérêts coloniaux, souvenirsduvoyage (Paris, 1843), pp. 123-24;

33. Cornillère, op. c/7., pp.123-24; Soleau, op. cit., p. 59;Ministère de la Marine et des Colonies, Exposé général,p. 102.

34. A.N.S.O.M., Martinique 7 (83), Mathieu à Ministre dela Marine et des Colonies, 10 March 1847, No. 1508.

35. ¡bid.\ Benoit Duschene-Devernay, Mémoire sur laMartinique avec des notes explicatives (Paris, 1832);p. 22-27; Schoelcher, op. cit., pp.4-7, 14-15.

36. Schoelcher,op. c//.,pp. l-3;MinistèredelaMarineetdes Colonies, Exposé général, pp. 111,268-77,288-91,332-33.

37. /W<i.;A.N.S.O.M.,Martinique7(83), Duschene-Duvernay, op. cit., pp. 17-19.

38. Ministère de la marine et des Colonies, Exposé général,p. 100, llI,332-33;Schoelcher,op.c/V.,p. ll;Lavollée,Notes sur les cultures, p. .10.

39. /¿)/'i/.;SidneyW. Mintz,'Was the Plantation Slave aProletarian?', Review, Vol. 2. No. 1 (1978), 81-98.

40. Mintz, op. cit.41. ¡bid.\ Douglas Hall, 'The Flight from the Plantations

Reconsidered: The British West Indies, 1838-1842',Journal of Caribbean History, Vol 10-11 (1978),pp.7-23.

42. Rodney, 'Plantation Society in Guyana'.

Copyright of Caribbean Slavery in the Atlantic World is the property of Ian Randle Publishersand its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv withoutthe copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, oremail articles for individual use.

the other face of slave labour: provision grounds and ...€¦ · the other face of slave labour:...

Documents