The Haitian Revolution and Toussaint L'Ouverture

            Today in class I watched an interesting movie on the Haitian Revolution, now I’m going to create a blog post as a follow up to the movie. I decided to write about the how the Haitian Revolution was influenced by Enlightenment ideology, and how Toussaint L’Ouverture used this ideology to win the revolution. I choose this because it is a topic that interests me. Now, before I start to talk about how these ideals affected the revolution, we need to first be familiar with what these ideals were. Some of the basic Enlightenment ideals were political, social and economic equality for male citizens, and representative government. As learned in class, all throughout history revolutions occur because of new ideals that change the thinking of that time period, sometimes for progression, and sometimes for regression of a country.

In the case of the Haitian Revolution of 1789-1804, these new ideals had a huge impact on the progression of its country. This Enlightenment philosophy made its way to the Caribbean, and influenced the people to free themselves from France! One slave in particular was strongly influenced by these Enlightenment ideas: his name was Toussaint L’Ouverture and he was the leader of the Haitian Revolution. Toussaint was a special case, being a slave on a plantation for the bulk of his childhood he had a better life than other slaves, learning to read and write at a young age. He was able to educate himself because his master was nicer than other slave masters during that time, which is why when the revolution began, his loyalty remained to France. 

However, things changed in the Fall of 1791. L’Ouverture soon realized that Haiti's conditions were unlivable for the slaves because of how slave owner’s abused them, and how they ignored the inhumane work of slaves. L’Ouverture wanted liberty and equality for all, showing his strong belief in enlightenment ideals. His strong beliefs allowed him to be a good leader during the revolution. Ultimately, these Enlightenment ideals are what inspired L’Ouverture to become a strong and successful leader for the slave revolt in Haiti. 

Often, scholars have depicted slaves during the revolution as following L’Ouverture blindly, however this is not true. (Toussaint L'Ouverture: a biography and autobiography‬, John Relly Beard & James Redpath) L’Ouverture actively used the ideas of the Enlightenment philosophy, empowering him to gain many followers who agreed with his philosophy, which led slaves to become successful in winning the revolution. Although L’Ouverture didn’t live to see the results, his main goal of separating Haiti from France was a success! 

Photo --> http://www.footnote.com/document/17113174/

Causes of the French Revolution

When I first learned about the French Revolution, I didn’t understand why it occurred. The textbook gives the reader two different examples, which may or may not have been the origin of the Revolution. It seemed as if the textbook was leaving it up to the reader to decide. While there is much disagreement over this topic, I think that social differences combined with a lack of food due to economic hardship is what caused the Revolution.
There are two main schools of thought on why the French Revolution happened, the Marxist and the Revisionist school of thought. The Revisionist historiography of the French Revolution suggests that the struggle is due to economic hardship, ultimately resulting in a lack of food. This school of thought specifically states that there was no strong division between the classes, whereas the Marxist school of thought directly contradicts the Revisionist school of thought. The Marxist historiography suggests that the start of the Revolution was a class struggle between the Nobility and Bourgeoisies. This school of thought says that the medieval society limited the bourgeoisie, which was becoming more powerful and wealthy.

In My opinion, social differences (the Marxist school of thought) were one reason why the French Revolution began. French society was split into three classes or estates. The first estate was the clergy, the second was the nobility and the third was everyone else. The third estate also held the bourgeoisie, which was their upper middle class. Both the nobles and the clergy had rights that were not extended to the third estate. These noble rights were a source of social tension because they gave French noble’s rights that no one else had, and this seemed unfair to the bourgeoisie, who attempted to get them taken away. These social differences pushed the large population of bourgeoisie to become increasingly more wealthy and self-confident. Those characteristics allowed them to abolish the feudal rights, pushing the social tensions further between the classes. In addition to abolishing the feudal rights, the bourgeoisie gained so much confidence that they declared themselves the national assembly. They thought, "If king wont do it, than we will do it ourselves." (Photo on right: Tennis Court Oath). 

My second opinion of why the French Revolution started is because there was a lack of food due to economic hardship (the Revisionist school of thought). Now, not only were there major social differences occurring, but a lack of food added onto that and made things worse. The lack of food, specifically bread from a poor harvest season, was a major source of the Parisian people’s anger. This is so, because bread was the mainstay of the French people’s survival and when bread became scarce, the prices rose dramatically, and many people could not afford it. However, it was not really the bread that caused the anger, but the idea behind it. The French people expected the government to be able to provide them with work and bread so that they could survive. When bread became more expensive people stopped buying manufactured goods, which resulted in a collapsing of the market. The bread just highlighted the economic mess the French were in, causing people to take charge, which resulted in the march on Versailles. 7,000 women travelled form Paris to Versailles to complain about the lack of affordable bread. They angrily invaded the palace looking for Marie Antoinette. The royal family was saved by Lafayette and the National assembly, but as a result they had to move to Paris

(Photo on left: march on Versailles).

After analyzing the causes of the Revolution I understand why it happened. I believe that it is a combination of the Marxist and the Revisionist school of thought. However, there are still other possibilities of why the Revolution began, so I’d like to hear your ideas, what do you think caused the start of the French Revolution?

Sources: 

Photo #1

Photo #2 

Federalists vs. Republicans

After learning about the first two political parties in the 1780's, which emerged during the American Revolution, I wondered which party system I would belong to. So, I decided to do additional research to learn about each party. The two parties were the Federalists and the republicans, who were exceedingly different in thought, design, and status of people involved.
The Republicans were known to be strict constructionists who rigorously followed the Constitution, while the Federalists were considered to be broad constructionists who widely interpreted the Constitution, keeping their interests in mind. After much research,  I was inclined to lean towards the Republican Party. 

Imagine it's the 1700's. The Federalist Party is a strong
government, established of a national bank, with a focus on industrialization. The Republican Party advocated states rights, opposition to a national bank with a focus on the common folk, and believed that the Constitution needed a bill of rights. So I ask you this: would you be a Federalist like Hamilton, a Republican like Madison, or belong to no party like Washington? What i find interesting, particularly about Washington's stance on political parties, is the fact he wanted to avoid an inevitable party system in America. Unfortunately, even when saying this, he was part of the first party system in United States politics. The first split of the party system came with the differentiation between the Federalists and the Republicans.

I concluded that I would be a Republican, because I believe in what they stand for, especially the fact that Individual rights are extremely important. Hamilton had his points, but in my opinion, the vision he had would be a corrupt government.

Sources sites: 

photo #1 

The American Revolution

After reading about the American Revolution, I was particularly interested in the Colonist’s reactions to the Sugar, Stamp, and Tea Acts. Not only that, but I was fascinated by both British actions and their motivations behind creating these acts. Because of my curiosity, I decided to take the time to ponder whether or not the Colonists responses were justified or not; and whether or not they were just whiny babies. After extensive thought, I decided, that the Colonists were just whiny.

The first event leading to the revolution was the victory over the French in the Seven Years’ War or the French and Indian War in 1763. This was first a blessing, and then a curse, because England became severely in debt after fighting for seven years. Many English officials believed that only by taxing the Americans directly could the empire effectively meet its debts. This school of thought led to the first taxes on stamps and on sugar. This angered the Colonists because they thought they had no say in the matter. This was that they called “taxation without representation.” The Colonists thought that it was not fair of the English to demand all this money from them. However, England had been fighting in the Colonies defense to protect them, therefore I think it was completely justified for England to tax the Colonists and once again, the Colonists were just whiney. What bothers me the most was how the Colonists reacted to these taxes.

Around 1771, England repelled the taxes, but added a tea tax shortly after. The act infuriated Colonial merchants and revived American passions about the idea of taxation without representation. So, on May 10th, 1773, three companies of 50 men each went masquerading as Mohawk Indians abroad three ships, they broke open the tea chests and heaved them into the harbor, dumping close to a million dollars worth of tea. This irresponsible and unnecessary act was called the Boston Tea Party, which deeply enraged England because they did not understand what they had done to bother the Colonists. They added this tax on tea because Britain’s east India Tea Company, which was on the verge of bankruptcy, could not sell its tea in England. In an effort to save it, the government passed the Tea Act of 1773, which was a small tax on the Colonists to save their company. The British government was incredibly easy going on the Colonists, because the Colonists generally paid less taxes than the British, about 2 shillings a year per person, compared to Britain's 26 shillings per year. The overall tax burden was much greater on British Citizens. However, never once did they act out against this, because they knew that it would be pointless and they would only be hurting their country. The small tea tax on the Colonists should have been no big deal, yet once again, the Colonists made a big issue out of nothing. 

As a result, England formed the Intolerable Acts or, as some know it, the Coercive Acts. With these acts, England punished the Americans for their behavior in the Tea Party. They closed the port of Boston, reduced the powers of self-government in Massachusetts, permitted royal officers in America to be tried in other countries or in England when accused of crimes, and made it a law that Colonists must provide for the quartering of English troops. In my opinion, these acts were justifiable because the Colonists deserved to be punished. One can clearly see how the Colonist’s were whiny and ungrateful towards England. Do you think the Colonist’s were standing up for their rights and for representation, or do you think that they were complainers. Or, are you in the middle and believe that they were standing up for their rights, but in some instances, took it too far?

Sources cited: My photos can be found here

First Photo

Second Photo

The Enlightenment; Essential Questions

After reading about the Enlightenment, I began to wonder about the essential questions on this subject.Was the Scientific Revolution a sharp break from the past or a continuation of earlier thought? Do rapid changes constitute a revolution if they only affect a small number of people? How did the enlighteniment connect science and society, and how might the englihtment affect political life in the future?
To first understand these questions, I needed to have a proper understanding of what the Enlightenment was. The Enlightenment was an era of Western Philosophy and intellectual, scientific and cultural life. Occurring in the 1700's, the Enlightenment questioned traditions and values set in place before, and rebelled. (McKay)
- That the scientific revolution was a sharp break from the past and a continuation of earlier thought. The ancient Greeks, and then the medieval Muslims, used scientific reasoning and experimentation, but then the Christians in the middle Ages stopped using scientific reasoning, preferring religious dogma over it. That changed with the scientific revolution, even though it was a hearkening back to ancient times.
- Rapid changes do not constitute a revolution if they only affect a small amount of people. A revolution is an overthrow of an established government &/or political system that happens in a sudden, complete change. A revolution will have important effects, repercussions and consequences affecting the mass population. It would not be a revolution if if only affected a few people, because there would not be a big enough change.
- The Enlightenment connected science and society because in the 1700's, people began to use reasoning and scientific experimentation to solve problems in society. Instead of just relying on old religion-based ideas, they tried reason and experimentation to address issues like ruling, equality and diplomacy.
- The enlightenment may affect political life in the future by (hopefully) having all around less lying, more truth, and real change. But with progress, comes danger. Is less lying and more truth really for the best? Should some things be kept a secret from the public, is it better to lie to protect the people or better to tell the truth and run the risk of a chaotic society? These are important questions which one needs to consider about the future.