World society, international society and the periphery: British abolitionists and the post-slave state of Haiti in the early nineteenth century^*

* The author would like to thank Jay Kirstein, Alexandria Innes, Chelsea Manning, Cornelia Navari, Matthew Slaboch, and the anonymous reviewers and editors at CRIA for their extremely helpful comments on prior versions of this manuscript. All errors are my own.

Abstract

Many studies of world society in the English School claim that non-state actors gain importance in international relations when they try to influence the most important members of the society of states. This article argues that such an approach overlooks the diversity of world society activities. First, it obscures the activities of world society actors beyond the core and therefore offers an incomplete account of the agency such actors exercise in global affairs. Second, it overlooks the fact that non-state actors from the core can disseminate some of the core’s values beyond its borders. The example of British abolitionist contact with the post-slave state of Haiti in the first two decades of the nineteenth century serves as an empirical illustration of these two points. The case study is particularly useful because conventional narratives of abolitionist activism tend to concentrate on contact with the core members of the society of states and overlook equally significant efforts to “teach” former slaves how to become respectable members of the society of states.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

* The author would like to thank Jay Kirstein, Alexandria Innes, Chelsea Manning, Cornelia Navari, Matthew Slaboch, and the anonymous reviewers and editors at CRIA for their extremely helpful comments on prior versions of this manuscript. All errors are my own.

¹ Haiti gained partial diplomatic recognition from France in 1825 and full recognition in 1838. The United States did not recognize the country until Abraham Lincoln’s administration. Since 1804, however, Haiti had an ambiguous status in international society. It controlled its territory and both its domestic and foreign policy. It was also no longer part of the colonial system since Paris had no control over Haitian leaders. The country traded and communicated with both neighbouring colonial authorities and with European powers. Furthermore, Haiti was not a non-state actor and was more akin to some unrecognized republics in the current international system. Therefore, I use the term “peripheral” or “marginal” as an analytical shortcut to refer to this ambiguous status, drawing on Fabry’s (2010, 7) statement that unrecognized states ‘have not had sovereign status internationally and have thus not been full and equal members of the society of states’. For further discussion on Haiti’s status, see Gaffield (2012), Fanning (2007) and Stinchcombe (1994).

² The campaign to abolish the slave trade was different from the campaign to abolish slavery as an institution. Wilberforce and Clarkson were leading organizers in the former and participated in the latter (see Wilson 1990).

³ This article accepts this premise since the task here is to demonstrate the importance of looking at the diversity of goals and activities such actors pursue. On challenges regarding the conceptualization of non-state actors in the ES, see especially Buzan (2004).

⁴ Pella Jr (2015) further builds on this initial conceptualization (see especially 31–49).

⁵ There is also an ongoing discussion here about how exactly non-state actors should be conceptualized. Little (1998, 59) argues that ‘individuals constitute the essential units of analysis in a world society’. Williams (2014, 130) adds that Bull’s definition of world society, which includes the notion of ‘parts of the human community’, can also include other non-state actors, but that ‘these have tended to be overshadowed by the focus on the universal community of humanity’. Buzan (2004) has separated non-state actors into transnational actors and individuals.

⁶ See also Pella Jr (2015) who elaborates on abolitionist contact with Africa.

⁷ The author would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for pointing this out. See also Pella Jr (2015, 46–47) for a similar argument.

⁸ See Darby (1997) on the diversity of postcolonial approaches.

⁹ Pella Jr (2015, 48) also notes that an overemphasis on the cosmopolitan dimension of non-state behaviour leaves the ‘potentially devastating (or even neutral) norms, values, and institutions which spawn from the non-state world unaddressed’.

¹⁰ On the latter issue, see Navari (2009) and Navari and Green (2014).

¹¹ This article will focus on William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson. The two abolitionists were the most visible figures in the movement. They also account for most of the correspondence with Haitian king Henry Christophe.

¹² This is not to suggest uniform agreement on this matter; see Lambert and Lester (2004, 332) for a discussion on this point.

¹³ The civilizing mission has commonly been associated with European expansion in the later part of the nineteenth century (Anghie 1999, 56; Adas 2004, 31; Barnett 2011, 62). In the case of the abolitionists, and especially in their ties with Haiti, the mission was not conducted with any state assistance (in fact, it was conducted in its absence) or with the goal of European colonial expansion. However, the principles behind it were the same: socializing non-Western people into what were considered superior Western standards of civilization.

¹⁴ For a more thorough analysis of the abolitionist civilizing mission in Africa, which uses the ES framework and asserts the centrality of world society actors in the process, see Pella Jr (2015).

¹⁵ Another dimension of abolitionist contact with Haiti, which is beyond the scope of this article, was Clarkson’s behaviour as an informal ambassador for Henri Christophe to the great powers. For an analysis of this aspect, see Geggus (1985).

¹⁶ For a very detailed analysis of the African Institution and its activities on the continent, see Ackerson (2005). See also Tomkins (2010, 200–201).

¹⁷ For exhaustive accounts of these events, see Dubois (2004) and Popkin (2011).

¹⁸ For a recent summary of the fast-growing literature on Haiti’s early history, see Girard (2013).

¹⁹ On the indemnity, see Beauvois (2009).

²⁰ Haiti was led by Jean-Jacques Dessalines from 1804 until 1806. After his death, the island was split into two major regimes, led in the south-west by Alexandre Petion (until 1818) and Jean-Pierre Boyer (from 1818), and in the north by Henry Christophe (1807–1820), who proclaimed himself king in 1811. The island was reunified after Christophe’s death in 1820. This paper focuses on the Christophe regime which had the closest ties with the British abolitionists. On early Haitian independence, see especially Nicholls (1979).

²¹ Although both official and unofficial trade continued with American merchants as well. On early US–Haitian ties, see Matthewson (1996). See also Gaffield (2012).

²² For a possible exception to this norm, see Jenson (2007) and Shilliam (2008). Garraway (2012, 15–16) explains that Baron de Vastey, a leading figure in northern Haiti, believed Britain had the obligation of enacting a civilizing mission.

²³ See Geggus (1985) for a detailed discussion of the correspondence as a whole.

²⁴ The correspondence between Christophe and Clarkson has been compiled in Griggs and Prator (1968). Letters from William Wilberforce are available in his published correspondence (Wilberforce 1840).

²⁵ A major figure in northern Haiti; see Daut (2012).

²⁶ This report is available in Griggs and Prator (1968, 130). Vastey also said in a letter to Clarkson on 24 March 1819 that authorities there sought to open a school in each parish; see Griggs and Prator (1968, 137).

²⁷ See especially Geggus (1985, 125–126), and Griggs and Prator’s (1968) account of the events.