The Slaves of the Haitian Revolution and Their Choice of Violence

Before the dawn of the Haitian Revolution,  the slaves of Saint-Domingue had long been oppressed by the largely unjust and brutal plantation owners who controlled them.  Slaves were unduly beaten for seemingly petty reasons and forced to live in constant suppression.  The average African slave died within three years of being imported to Saint-Domingue because of the inhumane and unreasonable conditions in which they were forced to live.  After years of the slaves continuing this vicious cycle, the seeds of rebellion were at last sown among the slave community.  As the stirrings of revolt spread, the slaves chose to initiate their first movement of revolution using violent means.   They attacked their masters, burned their plantations, and devastated crops,   essentially  returning the thoughtless actions of cruelty that had been doled out to them in the past by their masters. One could say that the violent course of action that they chose could be justified by the fact that they were slaves, and thus their cries of oppression would most likely not be heard through peaceful means.  So was there a possible way to achieve their freedom without the violence involved?  Was violence inevitable?  In these circumstances, their use of violence was justifiable.  In the society of Saint-Domingue, there was a very great difference in not only education, but also lifestyle and economics.  There was a total disconnect between the very wealthy plantation owners and the destitute slaves from whom they made a profit.  It was this disconnect between the two groups that perhaps led the slaves to seek violence in order to obtain their liberty.  Since the wealthy plantation owners did not look upon the slaves as equals, the two groups would not be able to rationalize peacefully about the prospect of freedom for slaves.  The slaves' sentiments would most likely be ignored.  Perhaps freed blacks and the colored elite could negotiate with the white elite, but even they had slaves of their own.  Thus, since the slaves were not in a position to negotiate with their oppressors as equals, violence was the only course in which they could be recognized.  In most cases, peaceful arrangement would be preferred, but since the slaves were so oppressed and downtrodden, violence was the only way that they could gain power over their masters and succeed in their mission of liberty.  As we learned, it was only after the slaves instilled fear in their masters through violence that they gained power and control.  Therefore, violence in the slaves' case, was inevitable in order for them to gain their independence.

Some questions to think about: But was there an alternative to violence? In general, is violence usually the inevitable route? Was there anything the slaves could have done to promote a more peaceful revolution?

First picture : blackpast.org
Second Picture -formaementis.wordpress.com
 Third Picture -latinamericanstudies.org

The Party System: Friend or Foe?

After America's Constitution was written in 1787,  two political parties formed in the 1790s: the more fiscally conservative Federalist Party led by U. S. Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, who believed in a strong central government, and the Republican Party( derived from the Anti-Federalists) , led by James Madison, writer of the Constitution, and Thomas Jefferson, who believed that the country was based upon agrarian farmers and thus the common good of the United States should be the basis of  government decisions.   However, the two parties were constantly fighting.  In the 1780s, much dissension arose among members of Congress after Hamilton's various bills were introduced.   The most controversy occurred when Hamilton proposed the bank bill.  The Anti-Federalist members adamantly insisted that since a national bank plan was omitted from the Constitution,  a national bank should not exist.  Regardless, Congress ceded to his proposal and the Bank Bill was passed, with the official Bank of the United States opening in 1791.  Overall, Hamilton got his way in most matters of Congress, mostly due to the fact that his opinion was valid and respected among the members of Congress.   However, not everyone supported him and his ideals.  Agrarian farmers who provided the basis of the economy expressed unhappiness with the taxes he imposed.  They also complained that the Federalist Party  as a whole did not keep the good of the common people in mind and instead appealed to the small amount of wealthy property owners.  Soon after,  Madison and Jefferson began to concur with the grievances of the farmers.  The Federalists, they believed, did not have the common people's best interest at heart and used corrupt political practices to reward their supporters and gain advantages in the system.  Hamilton's opponents went so far as to  compare the Federalists to the abhorrent British systems that the colonists of the 1770s had tried so hard to defeat!  All this dissension and disagreement inevitably resulted in organized oppositions to Federalist domination (the official creation of the Republican Party which had been called the Anti-Federalist Party before).  The Republicans tried to assemble meetings with hopes of gaining more of a majority. 

 So, was the Party System detrimental or helpful to the infant nation?  I believe that it was both.  The Federalists created a very strong system that was and still is a good basis of government.  Without doubt, Hamilton certainly made innumerable substantial contributions to the young nation, and his ideals are still in effect today.  And the Republicans' fundamental ideas of looking out for the common good are very valid as well.  But also, all the dissension and lack of unity that occurred between the two parties was detrimental to the young States.  They were too busy arguing to strengthen themselves as a nation and become aware of the dangers and challenges ahead as a new country.  The strong feeling of unity and morale that was instilled in America throughout the Revolution diminished.  The citizens did not share the same ideas anymore, which obviously is inevitable as new ideas form.  Instead, the cutthroat environment of the American politics that we see today were beginning to form, and furthermore the nation was more open to attack because of the internal problems.  Therefore, while altogether the party system helped establish core beliefs and ideals of American government and politics, the party system at the time stunted America's growth as a nation because of the internal dissent and lack of unity.

The Boston Massacre: An Argument on the Behalf of the British

For most Americans, the Boston Massacre is the ultimate symbol of the oppression and cruelty that the American colonies withstood while they were under British rule.   The events of March 5, 1770 are portrayed as a vile assault on the rights, liberties, and lives of supposedly innocent American colonists by heartless British soldiers.  However, there is another side to this argument.  What no one knows is that these young British soldiers that were held responsible for the deaths of five Americans were simply doing their jobs, after being provoked relentlessly by colonists.
             The British troops were brought into Boston in the first place for the purpose of enforcing the Townsend Acts, which were taxes on glass, paper, paint, lead, and tea that had been met with a lot of contention in the colonies, particularly the especially radical city of Boston.  Even though the Townsend Acts were a result of the debt that Britain faced after the French and Indian War (1756-1763) which essentially saved the homes of the colonists, they still were very opposed to the fact that they would have to be responsible for making up the debt as well as Britain.  The colonists' unwillingness to pay the taxes led to smuggling and boycotts of the taxed goods and thus influenced Britain to send troops to America in 1768.   In one case, John Hancock's ship was taken into British custody on the grounds that he was smuggling in untaxed goods to Boston, which created a big stir. All these consecutive events led up to the massacre as threats rebellion rose.  
            According to  the British Captain Thomas Preston's account of the Boston Massacre, the Bostonians had been relentlessly provoking and threatening any  British soldiers that crossed their paths. On the night of the Massacre, some rabble-rousing colonists assaulted two British soldiers and proceeded to ring the bells of the meeting houses, which usually symbolized fire but in this case was a call to fight.  The colonists then arrived at the square carrying various weapons such as clubs and bats and shouting offensive insults left and right, such as, in the account cited above, "Fire if you dare, God damn you, fire and be damned".  Certainly, this disproves the assumption that the British fired upon a crowd of innocent, peaceful Bostonians who were minding their own buissness.   Repeatedly the colonists shouted "Fire!!" and were now beating the soldiers with their bats and throwing snowballs at them with rocks.  At this point, the soldiers became enveloped by the confusion and at last fired their guns, possibly mistaking the colonists' cries of "Fire!" for the Captain's orders to fire.  However, Thomas Preston said that not once did he order his troops to fire.
During the trial , (the soldiers were branded on the thumb with a hot poker on the grounds that they were guilty of manslaughter), in which John Adams argued on behalf of Preston and his men, Preston, felt that "So bitter and inveterate are many of the malcontents here that they are industriously using every method to fish out evidence to prove it was a concerted scheme to murder the inhabitants. Others are infusing the utmost malice and revenge into the minds of the people who are to be my jurors by false publications, votes of towns, and all other artifices."  The British soldiers were venturing into a place where there was so much hatred and prejudice for them that there was barely a glimmer of a hope for anyone to be on their side.  Furthermore,  I believe that the Americans were truly looking for a fight and incited this to happen.  The British soldiers who were convicted simply were chess pieces on their boards.  They did exactly what the colonists wanted them to do:fire.  But in perspective, a soldier's job is to protect their country.  The Americans were assaulting and degrading the soldiers while screaming "FIRE!" at the top of their lungs, which certainly would have caused confusion and disorentation in such a heated moment.  For protection and safety, the soldiers fired. 
What does everyone think? Do you think the soldiers were innocent? Or do you believe that the Americans were right in this situation?

Sources cited:  Picture

The Role of Women in the Enlightenment

After reading about women's influence during the Enlightenment,  it struck me how successfully some educated and informed women were able to unite men of different beliefs and ideas in a Parisian salon, and not only participate, but preside over these thoughtful meetings.   The select few women that took such a role as leaders in these salons enabled  some of the most significant growth during the Enlightenment because they were able to bring together the greatest thinkers and debaters of the time and acted as mediators between the public and the elite.  Their female gender alone created a more peaceful and polite conversation among men who perhaps could have created a heated debate.  In these salons, free speech was also encouraged, which created a more open environment where ideas could be  created and discussed without censorship or controversy.  However, salonnières such as Madame Geoffrin kept their religious beliefs intact during discussion, which  kept conversation within boundaries of the time.  Although these women had a very significant role because they were the "glue" that held the salons together, the Enlightenment was not a progressive time for women as a whole because roles as salonnières were only available to the select few who were educated, wealthy, and sociable enough to preside.  The salonnières were also ultimately limited by their lesser education because they could not participate as fully as their more highly educated peers, men.  Not to mention, the common masses, which made up the largest percentage of the population, were left out of  salon activity all together.  The only way ordinary people could access the latest in philosophical thinking was through cheap pamphlets.  Women could be almost completely eliminated from that group because they had very little education, if any at all.  Even women of the highest social standings did not have much educational opportunities available to them because of their gender.  Although some philosophes believed that education for women marked a society's progression(mostly French), Europe at large still held a similar belief as the Swiss Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who argued that women essentially belonged in the kitchen, and their sole purpose was to please their husbands in a typical subservient fashion.  Montesquieu  confirmed negative feelings about women: that female aristocrats used their sexuality to obtain power amongst their male superiors, which he argued was the cause of corruption in government systems.  So, all forward-thinking philosophes who tried to make education more available to women did not influence the time significantly because the popular belief that Rousseau and Montesquieu shared about women hindered progress in women's equality.   Also, more rights for women did not mean equality to men.  They still maintained a subordinate role in matters of education and political standing.  ALthough the Enlightenment was able to create progression for elite women,  all women were not able to benefit from the activity of the salons and academies because their access and education was limited.