We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Chapter 6 further documents and analyzes slaves’ criticism of early republican principles and antislavery policies. Antioquia slave leaders emerged as vanguard abolitionists in 1812, folding critical antislavery conventions from the judicial forum into emerging anti-Spanish, egalitarian, and republican doctrines. They proposed that the liberation of slaves should be an immediate purpose of the new republic, and suggested that slaves fully belonged in their homeland of Antioquia – a critique of limited republican citizenship. But republican leaders paid no attention to this exegesis of liberty, claiming that the slaves’ immediate liberation would bring about chaos. This tension would be inherited by the Republic of Colombia’s manumission law of 1821, which closed the possibility of immediate abolition. Still, powerful Popayán masters, denounced by the former slave Pedro Antonio Ibargüen as “aristocrats,” continued to defend inequality and bondage. They undermined even limited antislavery legislation on the groundless notion that setting slaves free from their masters would unleash a war of black against white and paralyze gold mining.
The slaves of Antioquia, studied in this chapter, experienced a constant tension between captivity and geographic mobility. Many easily and frequently talked to other slaves and to free people, sharing their hopes that an end of slavery was possible. Slave leaders tried collectively to press for the end of their enslavement. After Antioquia’s transformation into a republic devoted to individual freedom in 1812, slave leaders emerged as the first critics of the founding documents and legal principles of this new polity. Felix José de Restrepo and other members of Antioquia’s independent government partially listened to those criticisms. They amalgamated experiences and perspectives that were first developed in Cartagena and Popayán, inviting revolutionary colleagues to consider that legislators and forward-looking governments had an obligation to favor freedom over slavery. Antioquia passed Colombia’s first antislavery law in 1814. Based on the free womb principle, the law was correctly understood by slaves as a legal act with limitations and ambivalences. But the Spanish Restoration of 1816 halted this law and all other antislavery and anti-Spanish initiatives.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.