Haitian Revolution

Toussaint L'Ouverture

The Haitian revolution, while a violent revolt against oppression, was largely different from the American revolution. While the American colonists were rebelling against the new controlling government of Britain, many of the Haitian slaves who revolted had been enslaved for nearly their entire life, and wanted payback. What is interesting is that slavery was abolished in Saint Dominigue in 1804, while the Emancipation Proclamation was not passed until 1863. Slavery in Haiti was eradicated much earlier, suggesting that the revolt tactics used were more successful.
Toussaint L'Ouverture is often described as the George Washington of the Haitian Revolution. Though some might consider him a virtuous leader who caused the abolishment of slavery in Haiti, he was a petty and stubborn individual who put his interests above the well being of his people. Toussaint was known to deport or kill anyone who even seemed like a threat to him; an example of this is his deportation of Sonthanax, a French commissioner who essentially had the same goal for Haiti- the abolishment of slavery. Toussaint felt threatened by Sonthanax's growing popularity and forced him out of the country. Despite their common cause, Toussant cared more about his own glory than the interests of his people; this demonstrated his petty flaws.
In addition, Toussaint pushed too hard for complete independence from France. In writing the new constitution, Toussaint declared himself the governor for life, or essentially a military dictator. Napoleon was not prepared to accept that, as he wanted the revenue Haiti would make. Toussaint's desire to control Haiti was the eventual cause of his downfall; Leclerc, a general of Napoleon, sent troops to the island and seized Toussaint and his family. He spent the rest of his life in prison, and soon died of pneumonia. So what do you believe? Was Toussaint L'Ouverture a virtuous leader, or a stubborn and petty one?

Alexander Hamilton

When looking over the reading, I was struck by Alexander Hamilton's plan for the government of America. Hamilton believed that one of the keys to a beneficial and stable government was a wealthy ruling class. He thought that to be effective, government needed the help of the elite, and thus imposed his "Funded Debt proposal". This proposal stated that the certificates of indebtedness that had been issued to wealthy speculators would be called back and replaced with interest- bearing bonds. This gave the elite bond owners a reason to want the government to prosper. After reading the passage, a few aspects of it stood out to me. I found it fascinating how much Hamilton believed that an elite class was so imperative to a strong government. In fact, I remember discussing a topic similar to this a few classes ago, debating whether a society could be based on economic equality or whether there needed to be a separation of classes, for example, wealthy and poor. Personally I believe that, although it would be ideal to have a government based on equality, it seems nearly impossible and somewhat impractical. As long as money exists, there is never going to be complete economic equality. Economic equality could be compared to communism, and as we know, communism failed. But what do you guys think? Can a government be founded on equality, or do you agree with Hamilton, in that there must be a separation of classes for government to be effective? Lastly ,I feel Hamilton's ideas were similar to the early forms of capitalism and "trickle down" economics. Hamilton concluded that one of the most crucial aspects of a successful government was the involvement of the elite class. This is related to capitalists, who believe that if you invest in the upper class, it will trickle down and benefit the society as a whole. Socialists, however, believe that society benefits when everyone, regardless of status, receives equal opportunity. Do you agree that Hamilton's ideas could be compared to capitalism? Share your thoughts :)

Violence and its role in Revolution

After listening the discussion we had last class and reading tonight's homework, the idea of violence and it's role in revolution came to mind . Last class we were responding to Tola's blog which discussed whether Americans were truly virtuous or simply whiny. We talked about the Son's of Liberty's methods of expressing their message of freedom, and came to the conclusion that they could essentially be considered terrorists. The sons used violence and scare tactics to cause a scene, such as the Boston Tea Party. Other destructive acts started by the colonists were the burning of the Gaspee and the Boston Massacre. For the most part, these events did not cause any improvement in the lives of the colonists, but rather prompted Britain to further impede upon their rights. For example, the Tea party triggered Britain to impose the Intolerable Acts which lessened the power of self- government in Massachusetts. Despite the downsides to these violent acts, they did draw attention, thus causing more people to support and join their cause. Overall, one may think that these destructive methods of gaining attention are inferior to more civil methods and are not necessary in revolution. However, I remember on Monday that our class came to the general consensus that some type of violent revolt is needed to spur a change. Patrick Henry agreed. In the passage we read for our read- aloud, Henry states "We must fight! I repeat sir, we must fight!" Patrick Henry realizes that to really gain the respect of England and achieve the liberties that they feel they deserve, they must start a violent conflict. They must be willing to risk death for what they believe in.
I believe that violent rebellion was needed to prompt a revolution during the 18th century and earlier, but not necessarily now. Humanity ( at least in America) has developed a much higher moral code and thus would be able to spur change without resorting to violence. With the technology society has nowadays, we have methods of spreading ideas that are much more widespread, civil, and easy. We have the ability to get a message across without violent means. In the 1700s, they could only hold protests and meetings, and spread pamphlets/propaganda. Violence was needed to start the revolution as America needed to assert the fact to Britain that they were a real threat. What do you guys think, how does violence play a role in revolution and is it necessary to trigger evolution of society?

As I was reading over our most recent home work in the text book, a few ideas came to me, and I figured I would share them here. While reading about Salons I was thinking about the various ways information is shared and how it differs now and during the Enlightenment. During the 17th and 18th centuries, knowledge was spread through published (and smuggled) literature, or via salons. In modern times, however, we have a crucial tool for sharing information that was non-existent during the enlightenment: Internet. But which time period was/is better for promoting progress through the sharing of thoughts? Both have their benefits and downsides. For example, During the enlightenment, many works thought to be heretic or contradictory towards common beliefs were not allowed to be published- many publications were watered down ( like the Encyclopedia) or banned all together. This constant monitoring of content discouraged progress. In our modern times very few things are censored on the internet- at least in our country- allowing for the introduction of new ideas. Unfortunately, the internet brings many negatives into the picture; the anonymity that the internet provides can encourage people to introduce false information. Anyone can post anything online...an example of this is the website wikipedia. We are all told not to use wikipedia as anyone can post false information. Essentially, 17/18th century Europe had the opposite problem that we do now : over censoring vs. inadequate monitoring of what is posted online. Don't get me wrong, I do not believe that people's thoughts should be censored on the internet, but I do know that society as a whole needs to be a scrutinizing about what information they choose to accept as true.

A positive aspect of Salons during the enlightenment was simply that they brought people together ( although usually only the upper class citizens) to share ideas. In the age of the internet, despite social networking sites, people are actually more isolated from each other. Most people communicate through internet or text messaging... It may seem old fashioned, but I think having a group of people get together(like we are doing in class)to share thoughts is one of the best ways to come up with new ideas and innovations.
So what do you guys think, how was information sharing different that how it is now, which type do you think is more conducive to progress? Thanks for your thoughts!