I would have liked this to be a straightforward review of selections from the political writings of Montesquieu, one of the key political theorists of philosophy's modern era. However, his writings on "Negro Slavery," in Book XV of his 'The Spirit of the Laws' ('De l'esprit des loix,' 1748), makes this not possible.
Contained in this Book ("How the Laws of Civil Slavery Are Related to the Nature of the Climate") is a repudiation of slavery as an institution whereby: "… the master… acquires all sorts of bad habits from his relationship to his slaves. Without being aware of it, becomes accustomed to behaving with a total absence of moral virtue; he becomes proud, hasty, severe, irascible, voluptuous, cruel" (pp. 200-1).
However, unfathomably, in Chapter V, Montesquieu addresses Black slavery, stating:
"[i]f I were ever forced to defend our right to make Negroes our slaves this is what I should say: Since the European peoples have exterminated the Americans, they were obliged to make the Africans their slaves in order to clear such vast stretches of land” (p. 203).
Then, Montesquieu issues some of the most mind-numbing racial statements that I have encountered from a major philosopher; I am not repeating them, but they can be found on pp. 203-4.
The book’s editor, Melvin Richter (late of Hunter College and the Graduate Center of the City University of New York) who offers a detailed introduction and a large apparatus of endnotes, says in endnote 12: "[t]he deliberate irony of this chapter was not perceived by [a previous] editor… who wrote: "the above arguments from [sic] a striking instance of the prejudice under which even the liberal mind can labor." Richter also states that this chapter was directed at: "… satirizing apologists of Negro slavery" (p. vii).
I failed to read this chapter as ironic and even if it was satirically-minded, the racial virulence is so pronounced, that the satire falls flat, not only reinforcing but augmenting and extending the stereotyping.
Montesquieu concludes the chapter with this:
“Weak minds exaggerate too much the injustice done to Africans. Were it as great as they make out, surely the rulers of Europe, who were so given to making useless treaties, would’ve agreed to a general convention in behalf of mercy and pity” (p. 204).
Montesquieu, a skilled writer, could easily have constructed the sort of analysis directed toward slave-holding found elsewhere in this Book. I truly do not understand this approach.
Reading Montesquieu as a theorist for the separation of powers remains important but what he expresses in the above-considered chapter needs to be kept in mind.