The Color of Your Skin Doesn't Change the Color of Your Heart

We spent this week discussing the importance of human value. Do not fret, for it was not a week’s worth of, “Your smile is beautiful but your heart is beautifuller”. More appropriately, we focused on the acknowledgement of human values regardless of race and found evidence of this social imperative in the Latin American Revolutions. To start off our lesson, we took notes on the social rank of each racial group in the Latin American social structure as well as the percent that group made up of the population. The population was made up of 11% Peninsulares, 23% Creoles, 7% Mestizos, 8% Mulattoes and Free Blacks, 50% Indian peoples, and 11% slaves. If you were a Peninsulare, you were a European from the Iberian Peninsula (Spain or Portugal). If you were a Creole, you descended from Europeans but you were born in the New World. If you were a Mestizo, you descended from one white parent and one parent with Indian heritage. If you were a Mulatto, you were a free person of color (having at least one parent of African descent). Indians were the people living in Latin America before the Spanish colonized there. Slaves were of African descent, some even born in Africa. And, as history has often showed, the people with power made up the smallest percentages of the population: the Peninsulares.

My group's timeline of the Mexican Revolution

When comparing the Brazil, the Gran Colombia, and the Mexico revolutions we discovered some similarities between the three outbreaks. All three revolts were around the early 1800s and they were all against European countries who colonized and controlled them. All of the people not of European decent were fighting against the Peninsulares (lower class against the upper class). The revolutions were also somewhat different in that Gran Columbia and Mexico took place in Spain and were both very violent revolts, unlike Brazil, which took place in Portugal, and provoked very little fighting. Both Brazil and Gran Columbia had a government made up of only Peninsulares and the mixed lower classes wanted to overthrow them. Mexico was run by Peninsulares as well as Creoles. Countries were choosing their leaders based on race (white people in power, people of mixed race were in lower classes) rather than choosing them in a way that considers the real aspects of a good leader. Our class has just written a DBQ about Toussaint Louverture, the leader of a widely known slave rebellion. He was African American and possessed amazing leadership qualities. If his race were to prevent him from spreading his influence on those that were affected by it in a positive way, that would change history for the worse. When you’re a kid, you must’ve been told, “It’s what’s on the inside that counts”. If someone’s outward appearance blinds us from the capable qualities they possess, then revolts will inevitably and rightfully occur.

I think it’s very rare that, in our society today, we’ll make it through a whole month without hearing a story about racial discrimination. It’s hard for people to not consider someone’s race when figuring out their first impression of them. I’m not saying it’s right for someone to judge another person based off their race, but it’s hard for most people to ignore it. Then, in addition to that, there’s the dispute if it’s right for us to ignore it. Last year, in history, we took a survey about the future of America and one question asked if America should be colorblind or a melting pot; one ignoring all race and one embracing the different cultures and heritages. Either one is in support of equal rights. No one’s race should determine what they’re capable of; let alone what they’re incapable of. 

The Legacy of Louverture (DBQ)

Rulers should possess countless admirable qualities, such as honesty, eloquence, compassion, etc. A great ruler is typically only remembered for one specific quality, even if they possess all of the previously mentioned and more. Toussaint Louverture, the leader of the wildly remembered slave rebellion in Haiti, had many different aspects of his character and is remembered differently by historians today. Toussaint was born into slavery in the 1740s on the island of Saint Domingue which was first established as Hispaniola by Columbus and later renamed the independent country of Haiti. Under French control and producing 40% of the world's sugar as well as more than 50% of the world's coffee, Saint Domingue was one of the richest colonies in the world. In 1789, when the ideas of the French Revolution spread to the island, slaves, working on the plantations to produce the sugar and coffee, decided it was time to fight for their freedom. As a newly freed man, Toussaint Louverture played his part in helping the revolutionaries fight for their cause by commanding a rebel army of 4,000 troops in 1793. By 1794 he was appointed commander-in-chief of the army of Saint Domingue after France had abolished slavery and he had pledged his allegiance. Unfortunately, when Napoleon rose to power, there were rumors of reinstating slavery on the island. Toussaint then retracted his allegiance to France and led the islanders to put up an impressive fight against the 21,000 French troops invading the island in 1802. Toussaint was captured and brought to France where he died from pneumonia in a jail cell. He never knew Haiti defeated Napoleon and got their freedom in 1804. As such an influential leader, it's hard to pinpoint exactly what Toussaint’s legacy was. A legacy is what gets passed down from generation to generation in someone’s memory. Toussaint Louverture should be remembered as a liberator of slaves, a military commander, and the ruler of Saint Domingue.

Despite his admirable military tactics and his inspiring leadership skills, Toussaint should be remembered as a liberator of slaves because that was his main goal throughout the revolution. In 1974, “The revolutionary government in France under Robespierre abolishes slavery in France and all its colonies; Toussaint and his troops stop their revolt and now support the French.” (A). After fighting against the French for almost five years, Toussaint allies with his former enemy as soon as they give him what he wants: freedom for the people of Saint Domingue. And, when, “Napoleon sends 21,000 soldiers to Saint Domingue to reinstate slavery” (A), Toussaint switches back to fighting against France. The stability of his allegiances were questionable but his dedication to the cause definite. Toussaint was fighting to abolish slavery and whoever was against that was his opponent. When it was rumored that the French Directory wanted to reinstate slavery, Toussaint wrote a letter in which he threatened the French by saying, “We have known how to confront danger to our liberty, and we will know how to confront death to preserve it.” (B). He cannot and will not submit to the chains of slavery after he’s worked so hard to be free. Toussaint only plays the role of a military leader, threatening to use his troops against France, when it’s necessary to complete his task as a liberator of slaves.

Although not as important as freeing his fellow captives, Toussaint was a remarkable military commander. It is said that, “By his genius and surpassing activity, Toussaint levied fresh forces, raised the reputation of the army, and drove the English and Spanish from the island…” (F). Toussaint’s admirably strong grasp on the forces of Saint Domingue and the positive effect his leadership had on them was well known during this time. Not only was he marvelous in leading his troops to victory, but he also knew how to handle the soldiers when they got unruly. When a revolt broke out against his newly implemented labor policy, which stated free workers must return to work in the plantations, Toussaint showed how he reacts to soldiers who aren’t doing their jobs: “Toussaint himself was so enraged that when he passed through the rebel zone he ordered the mutineer regiments on parade and summoned certain men to step out of the ranks and blow their brains out…” (E). Sentencing the rebellious soldiers to death may be a bit harsh, but it kept Toussaint in control of the island and stabilized his position as the leader. His remarkable leadership abilities stretched farther than just the military.

Toussaint Louverture is also remembered as the capable ruler of Saint Domingue. He is declared their ruler in the constitution when it says, “The Constitution nominate citizen Toussaint-Louverture, Chief General of the army of Saint-Domingue and… he is entrusted the direction thereof for the remainder of his glorious life.” (C). The island of Saint Domingue had already seen Toussaint’s leadership qualities during the early revolts and he had shown them that they can instill their faith in him. Unfortunately, the citizens did not always realize he had their best interests at heart. In 1801, after Toussaint implemented new laws of labor, one of which stating, “As soon as a child can walk, he should be employed on the plantation according to his strength in some useful work…” (D), the citizens began to turn on him. Toussaint knew if their production rates for their crops went down after France had abolished slavery, slavery would be reestablished. He wanted what was best for the islanders and if hard decisions had to be made, he was willing to make them.

Throughout Toussaint Louverture’s life, his main goal was not to be the great ruler of Saint Domingue or a notable military leader, but only to be a liberator of slaves. He threatened the French Directory with his military forces, but only when it was necessary in order to avoid the reimplementation of slavery. He made harsh decisions as a military commander to ensure the newly free citizens of Saint Domingue would remain under control and not display any signs for possibly being better off in a society with slavery. As the ruler of Saint Domingue he implemented laws that would keep the island’s production rates high so France would have no reason to think slavery was required for the island to make the money they had previously been making with slavery. Although Toussaint Louverture took strong actions in the fields of military and ultimate leadership, his intentions were always focused on the liberation of slaves.

A: Created from various sources.

B: Toussaint Louverture, “Letter to the French Directory, November 1797.”

C: The Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801. Signed by Toussaint Louverture in July 1801.

D: Toussaint Louverture, “Proclamation, 25 November 1801.”

E: Madison Smartt Bell, Toussaint Louverture: A Biography, 2007.

F: William Wells Brown, “A Description of Toussaint Louverture,” from The Black Man, His Antecedents, His Genius, and His Achievements, 2^nd edition, 1863. Engraving of Toussaint Louverture, 1802.

Failure is a Matter of Opinion

Our failure scale

As students, we don’t exactly know how to measure failure. We have so much time left in our lives that any “failure” made now can be fixed by the time the books of our lives are sealed shut. Only when looked back on things can we decided whether or not they should be deemed a failure. In class, we inspected the way many historians have judged the revolts of the mid 1800s by posing this question: were the revolutions of 1830 and 1948 really failures as many historians have concluded? To start off the week, we created a scale that defined the outcomes of revolutions ranging from a complete failure to a complete success. SurveyMonkey to create a quiz about our revolution for our class to take. We then worked in groups of 4-5 to research specific revolts during this time. We read an online document about our assigned revolution, answered some guiding questions, and used

As you can see from our results on our
 SurveyMonkey questions, we recieved a
 variety of different answers.

I had the pleasure of working with the Decembrist group. The Decembrist Revolt  took place throughout December 1825 in Russia. People were unhappy with Tsar Alexander I’s ruling tactics and planned to overthrow him.

Some questions, such as this one, required
students to pay more attention to things other
than just the writing in the source. (The
answer to this question was in the title).

They wanted to replace him with his older brother Constantine, despite Constantine’s blatant statement that he did not want to be in power. After the Tsar’s unexpected death, Nicholas took to the throne. The rebels revolted in hopes of developing a weaker monarchy, abolishing slavery and abuse of power. Dmitry Zavalishin, a Decembrist, writes about the 1793 constitution granted to Poland and says, “Russians were offended at the granting of a constitution to defeated and conquered Poland before one was given to Russia, which vanquished it.” If Poland, who had been defeated by Russia, could handle the implementation of a constitution, then Russia, their superiors, should be able to too. Nicholas ended up firing on his own people to defeat the rebels. He shut down any contact outside of the country and took away religious freedom as well as all other rights. Nicholas explains his reaction to the revolt by saying, “The laws demand retribution and, in their cases, I will not use my power to grant mercy. I will be unbending; it is my duty to give this lesson to Russia and to Europe.” Nicholas was too stuck in his conservatism mindset to see past the threat of the revolution and look into its meaning. He didn’t even consider implementing changes to the way he ruled, he only thought to prevent any future revolutions.

Like the Decembrist Revolt, many other revolutions during this time were not successes. The French Revolution of 1848 lived a short success: the bourgeoisie prospering for a short time until Napoleon eventually brought down his empire and ended France’s leadership in Europe. The Frankfurt Assembly concluded with hundreds of people killed and thousands of Germans leaving their homeland. The Hungary revolt led to the imprisonment, execution, and exile of many. These revolts were all in favor of liberalism, the people wanted more rights and a weaker monarchy. Historians are right to consider these revolutions to be a failure, seeing as they led to the death of thousands of people. But despite that, they succeeded in spreading liberalist ideas throughout Europe. These revolutions helped created the world we live in today. The immediate outcome of these revolts wasn’t a success, and because of the massive number of deaths they caused I can’t imagine they’d ever be considered one, but because they succeeded in spreading a message, I think it’s fair to put them fairly close to neutral on the grand scale of failure.