Toussaint L'Overture

Toussaint L’Ouverture, the famed leader and a revolutionist for the slaves of Haiti, however was he all that he was cracked up to be?

First Toussaint rose from the chains of slavery to become a brigadier general in the French army “defeating such powerful enemies as the Spanish General André Rigaud” (709, Mckay). To rise from the oppression of the Haitian land owners and to establish a name for himself, especially as a colored man, in the French army. Not only a name, but a rank of such height that many white men would have a hard time reaching. A brigadier general is not a rank given lightly, Toussaint won many battles as an officer “he lead his troops to a series of victories against the Spanish……Over the next three years L’Ouverture successfully eliminated rivals for authority of the island( Haiti )” (709, Mckay). The simple fact that Toussaint won battles proves he was doing something right. He was a man of commanding and held enormous self-control according to Mckay. The pieces seem to fit, suggesting he was a great general. Bestowed with honors and promotions his reputation was almost famous among French soldiers. So why is there any dispute as to his legacy as a leader?

Well, one can compare L’Ouverture to Napoleon in terms of his lust for power. Once Toussaint had control of Saint Dominique, he encouraged nay, forced the slaves to resume their duties. Yes this is justified by the fact that the revenue and the economy of the island was the only aspect keeping the island from a French intervention. Toussaint knew this, he also knew that “without money to pay his troops, the gains of the rebellion would be lost” (709, Mckay). He immediately enforced control and order on the island. Toussaint’s lust for power can also be supported by the fact that he called a colonial assembly for the creation of a new constitution “that reaffirmed his draconian labor policies and named L’Ouverture governor for life” (709, Mckay). This was a very questionable move from the famous general. Firstly this limited the Haitian’s progress both in social areas and economic areas. Constricting the fate of the colony to Toussaint’s wishes and ideas, basically establishing Haiti as provincial. Secondly L’Ouverture was turning on his former actions of fighting for liberty, by reaffirming the policies of slavery, which he had instilled in the colony.

In conclusion Toussaint was a most successful general leading his troops to many victories which in turn lead to his promotion and fame among the social areas. However later as his power grew to control of the island of Saint Dominque, his actions as a governor proved to go against his early ideals of liberty by reaffirming the necessity for slavery among the Haitian people. Perhaps the necessity of slavery trumped the moral inclination however facts are facts and in my mind, his actions are subject to question.

The Reign of Ingenious Terror

The Reign of terror, an extremely violent period throughout French history in which the rivalry of the Girondins and the Jacobins resulted in the mass execution of those people thought to be enemies of the revolution. How could this idea of been a smart and logical approach by either radical group. In killing the thousands which were being considered enemies of the revolution, both groups lose the opportunity to gain the upper hand. If either group had simply of tried to coax, befriend and lure their so called enemies to their side, their group would gain the upper hand in this blood thirsty battle. However neither group did. Instead of focusing on how their group could be dominant, they simply wanted blood. They wanted someone to have accountability for governmental and perhaps in fact their own sins. Both groups were so blinded by emotions of rage they did not think through their decisions. This lead to irrational killing and much blood that did not need to be shed.

However there is actual genius at work behind this seemingly idiotic executions. The spread of fear. The reign of terror was a highly effective weapon. It spread much fear among the citizens of France. With every waking moment they would be hoping that Rospierre and his committee of public safety would not break down their door and execute them all. This lead them to think through situations and make sure that what they were doing would not get them killed.

It is true genius when thought of this way. Firstly because it imprinted such a dominant symbol of power through times of hardship. Secondly because it made people think differently about their actions and ideals. Lastly the reign of terror was a "tabula rasa" a new beginning for France or at least for the radicals. They were simply getting rid of all in their way. No one could challenge them and inevitably they would come out on top.

The idiotic creation of the republican opposition

During lasts nights reading the text book brought up the creation of the republican opposition as a response to their belief that the federalists were simply out of control. This new republican opposition believed that the federalists were creating a tyrannical system of government whose only interests concerned their supporters. This i believe was an almost fatal mistake for the united states of America. This was a mistake because America was just coming out of a war that left them in huge amounts of debt. They were rethinking their ideals and making major adjustments to their government, they were extremely susceptible. At this time America needed a simple, fast and effect form of government that would pick the colonies back up onto their feet as soon as possible.
The creation of an opposition you could say was inevitable mainly because of the fact that people will always disagree, its in our nature. However if Jefferson had taken a step back a really examined the situation in which their country was in, I think he would have agreed that things needed to be done and fast. They needed to reform their government because most of their structures were based off of the English system. They needed money to abolish the huge debt they were now in and they also needed swift political action.
The federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, an aristorcrat, wanted to get the well-educated and high class people in power. This is another reason creating an opposition to the federalists at this time was a bad idea. The well-educated people needed to be in control at this unstable time. One could argue that the opposition group brought in people like Jefferson and Madison however their intentions became about luring supporters in and not so much focusing on their current problems.
It would be extremely interesting to see what America would be like if the federalists, at least for this time, were not challenged and continued to act in their own ways. I would definitely say that at one point there needs to be an introduction to new fresh ideas but for the state of the nation at this time, I believe that swift, effective action needed to take place and in my view, the federalists were best suited for the job.

The Foolish Monarchs

In tonight's assigned reading the text talks about some of the absolutist monarchs of Europe and how, at least some of them, tried to govern and rule in an "enlightened" manner, trying to encourage thought and question rather than subdue it. I genuinely believe this to be a grave mistake on their part and am surprised that the monarchs even thought about ruling this way. First lets examine the enlightenment and what it actually meant to govern people in an "enlightened" fashion. The enlightenment was a time of cultural, scientific, logical and progressive thought that emphasized question and debate. For the majority of Europe, this generally resulted in some rebellious thought and action, a time where people questioned the very laws and parameters they lived under. To govern in an "enlightened" manner is to promote the logical, rational and freethinking fashion in which people were so attracted to. However the first impressions of these ideas for people to think for themselves might seem, I can assure you this was a grave mistake taken by the monarchs. With this kind of questioning mindset, comes many many things, most of which are a monarch’s worst nightmare. The wish to govern in this way can be understood from the freedom and liberation granted to the people and in an ideal and utopian society, this would be a perfectly rational way to govern. However the concept of utopia does not exist and this is exactly why governing in this fashion is a very dangerous move. In governing this way the people possess a mind for question. If people question, they will question everything. Jean -Jacques Rousseau said, "Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains." This I believe to be true, however I also believe that control over man is necessary especially in a time as fragile and as experimental as the enlightenment. The simple act of questioning may start with why sky is blue, but I can assure you it will inevitably progress to much bigger and much more dangerous ideas, ideas that monarchs have no pleasure in dealing with. People will start to question the very government and rules in which they live under. They will wonder if the system that they live in is doing the right thing. They will wonder if they can trust the very kings and queens that govern them. In the encouragement of this style of thought, many people will begin to think like this, many people will develop their own ideas on how their country should be run. In the text it says, "The philosophes' influence was heightened by the fact that many government officials were attracted to and interested in philosophical ideas"(609) The encouragement then clearly originates from the enlightened inclination that many powerful officials had. This is perfectly understandable, the wish for more intellectual and rational people. However the officials did not take into account the result of letting people "think for themselves." People will find anything to question if the possess the power to question. The simple questioning and thought will lead to many ideas possibly of rebellion and change. Anyone of these ideas could spark a revolution, a complete and utter change of power within their system. For a monarch, rebellion and revolution are not meant to be encouraged. Immanuel Kant in his pamphlet titled "What is enlightenment?" says "Sapere Aude!" Which translates to dare to know. His pamphlet can basically be summarized as; humans need courage to use their own understanding. There own understanding, completely disregarding the authority's word, using their own ideas on how things should be run. It is cruel but a monarch would much prefer to govern people who are perfectly obedient and do not question the duties that are asked of them. This is exactly why governing in this manner is extremely dangerous and incredibly foolish for any monarch to encourage. The intention of trying to govern this way is understandable but with enlightenment comes the ability to question everything, which for a monarch is undoubtedly a nightmare.