Yeah and the principal reasons to reinstate slavery were:
-Having a steady income to fund the newly funded Napoleonic administration, the French Army and to prepare against future foreign agression i.e., the numerous European coalition that would eventually be raised against Napoleonic France. Because again, nobody at that time thought that it was more than a momentary peace. -Like you said, having the support of the merchant Elite in the French West Indies
Both theses reasons are for, like I literally said in my first comment, political and economical pragmatism. The potential racism of Napoleon is absolutely irrelevant in this context.
Same goes for the second part of your comment. The fact that he had no problems executing
Speaking of "people of color" to begin with doesn't mean much when the groups concerned are "Turks" and "Mameluks", given the great racial diversity of both of theses group. The Ottoman Empire was a probably the most racially and culturally diverse place at the time in the Europe and a large part of its population, including people who would fall under the demonym "Turk", would be white as snow. Also "people of color" would be an absolutely meaningless term at the time. "People of color" and its meaning are entirely a product of modern american culture, and only makes sens in a modern, I'd even say contemporary, American context. In pretty much every other part of the world where you have a great racial diversity, the society isn't divided between "white" and "people of color". See the carribeans, Brazil, most Africans countries etc.
Second, wanting to treat "Turks" and "Mameluks", as if they belonged to a group such as "people of color" is absurd given that a group such as "people of color" nowadays also implies belonging to a lower and persecuted social class, when Turks and Mameluks were both a part of literally one of the most powerful Empire in the World at that time.
Third, the Ottoman Empire had occupied a large part of Eastern Europe and the Balkans for centuries at the time, and were considered the nemesis of "Europe" and the Western World. They also occupied Egypt. Given that Napoléon wanted to champion himself as the new Emperor of the West and as a liberator, both of Eastern Europe and the Balkans, but also Egypt, it's not surprising that he would want to show that he was particularly harsh with the Ottomans. It is, like everything else, a political move. Even if he really personally loathed the Turks, which would be hard to prove to begin with, acting differently with Europeans and Turks makes perfect sens if you want to rule Europe and ultimately have the support of Europeans.
Fourth, you don't seem to know it, but after the Egyptian campaign, Napoléon literally incorporated Mameluks in his own army.
You also seem to conveniently forget that Napoléon is literally the first person in Europe of his stature to ever advocate for the emancipation of Jewish people and that he literally freed the jews and opened the gate of the ghettoes wherever he went in Europe.
When he went in Egypt and fought against the Ottoman, he was probably one of the only Europeans leader to speak of Islam in a positive light.
Do theses last two point prove that Napoléon wasn't and anti semite and not an Islamophobe ? I guess no. But then why would his attitudes with slavery and the turks made a racist out of him ?
The only thing it proves is that Napoléon was, before anything else a man who did everything by political pragmatism.
And wanting to judge him according to current mores and values is insanely hypocritical and unfair. It was the 1800 for God's sake.
Which is exactly why I brought forward the American founding fathers : they were obviously, it's clear in their writings and in their act, racist, xenophobic, classists, misogynistics etc. They even had slaves !!! But somehow everyone cut them some slack, and try to put them in context. You literally worship them over here in America. But Napoléon would be an awful racist ? Please