Enlightenment ideas and the Haitian Revolution

Enlightenment ideas not only effected the French revolution but they also had a great affect on the Haitian revolution. More than half of the Haitian population was slaves. And ideas were spreading about freedom and liberty. The slaves would hear news of the french revolution from the french sailors at the docks. The new ideas of freedom inspired them. These idea gave them hope that France would give them freedom. The slaves of Haiti grew tired of waiting for France to abolish slavery but France finally abolished slavery. But their freedom was being questioned by invading Spanish and British forces that might reinstall slavey. The newly freed slaves had to fight and they found their leader in Toussant, a former slave himself. A man who once knew the pain of being oppressed. The slaves needed a leader who had the same enlightenment ideas embedded in them. These enlightenment ideas were so strong in the slaves that it forced them to fight for what they believe in. They had to fight for their freedom because someone was taking it away from them. The enlightenment ideas would not fade away either. When Toussant was arrested and Leclerc took the arms of the slaves away, they rebelled. They feared that their freedom would be taken away again so they fought back the French. The haitian revolution was able to happen because of enlightenment ideas. They gave the slaves something to fight for even if was against all odds. It was because of that determination that the Haitian revolution was able to be the first successful slave revolt in history.



Link for picture:http://www2.needham.k12.ma.us/nhs/cur/Baker_00/2002-p4/baker_p4_12-01_db/images/ouverture.1.gif

Information on enlightenment ideas:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment

Was Robespierre right in what he did?

When Robespierre was in power he used several questionable methods to help France become untied and to fight back the First Coalitions. The first of these methods was to create a planned economy. This is when the government controlled the max price of certain goods. The government also enforced rationing (page 697 Mckay) which forced bakers only to make "the bread of equality". I disagree with his methods because I believe that the government should not interfere with what people can and cannot make. But I do agree with the regulating of the prices of certain goods because this allowed the poor to eat. Another one of this methods was to create a fear in the country that would solidify the nation. While the end result here is good I strongly disagree with his methods. "Forty thousand French men and woman were executed or died in prison" (698). He used local courts that ignored legal procedures and they judged harshly. I think that doing this was incredibly wrong. He unfairly imprisoned thousands of French men and woman just to create unity in the nation. Overall Robespierre's methods created a much more powerful France that was able to overpower the First Coalition. This leaves the question do the ends justify the means, in my opinion no.

It's a Party in the USA

It was inevitable to happen. People of like ideas will most likely get together. There was nothing that the colonies could have done to stop the forming of the federalists and the republicans. But would they have wanted to?

With the forming of the federalists they were able to have organization and control the government which allowed them to pass their agenda. The federalists controlling the government was both a good and bad thing. It was good because it allowed Alexander Hamilton to devise a plan to eliminate the national debt. While some of his ideas were considered too "aristocratic" most of his ideas like the national bank, which influenced banking of today, and his taxes provided a way to help eliminate the national debt. But the federalists mostly represented the elite and rich of America. If the federalists were to remain in power they could create laws that only affect and support their supporters. Someone needed to check the federalists much like how the sections of government are checked by other sections. The republicans were an apposing force to the federalists. No longer could the federalists control government with out apposition. The republicans also made sure that everyones opinion was being expressed. The republicans represented the farmers of America and the republicans had a very different view of America than the aristocratic view of the federalists. The republicans wanted an agrarian republican where the people of america would farm their own land.

Despite the believe at the time that parties were bad for America they were actually good. They provided a way for both sides of the picture to be seen. The federalists showed a aristocratic America and the republicans showed a agrarian America. The parties also allowed for representation of all people. This idea goes back to the heart of what America was founded on, a government by the people for the people. The parties made sure that people are being represented.

Where did Britain go wrong

In class yesterday we talked about the relationship between Britain and the colonies. Some people in class said that the relationship between a colony and a country is doomed from the beginning and while I agree with that partly I think that there are always exceptions, like Porto Rico who doesn't want to be a state. I believe that Britain could have salvaged the relationship they had with the colonies. I believe that the British made a fatal mistake when the passed the Coercive Acts, better known as the "Intolerable Acts". The British thought that they would put an end to the unrest in the colonies by making an example of Massachusetts by showing the other colonies that actions like the Boston Tea Party would not be tolerated. But, as mentioned in the reading on page 108, if backfired and the other colonies saw Boston as a martyr. I believe that this also greatly contributed to the colonies seeing themselves as a whole rather than individual colonies. The colonies saw this as a threat and thought if this could happen to Massachusetts what's to stop it from happening to me. It was no coincidence that the first Continental Congress was held the same year.

If the colonies did not unify themselves I think that the British could have handled the situation. It would have been much easier if British were to deal with 13 individual colonies than all of them together. Britain could have easily overpowered the colonies if they did not stand together. They also could gain the favor of individual colonies at a time rather than trying to please all the colonies at once. Also once the colonies organized themselves at the Continental Congress they become uniform. If the colonies had not become organized then Britain could have easily dealt with the coloines because they would be unable to create a military force and would not be able to create andy legislations or proposals. It is like the old saying goes "Together we stand, divided we fall."

Link about Porto Rico: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/29/house-approves-puerto-rico-statehood-measure/