Racial Discrimination Sparks Revolutions

This unit has been about revolutions all around the world during the 1800s.  For this lesson, we learned about Latin America Revolutions in Mexico, Brazil, and Gran Columbia.  The essential question for this lesson is, “Why is it essential to acknowledge human value regardless of race?  How are the events in the Latin America Revolutions evidence of this social imperative?”  This essential question is particularly important to talk about because race was an important factor in how our world made decisions over the past hundreds of years.  We should consider this question and strive to answer it because someone’s race effects all of what happens in their life, and if race can effect a revolution, then it needs to be discussed on a higher level.  People should be valued equally no matter what their race.  We studied the impact of race on the Latin American revolutions for independence in class by first learning about the different races that made up the population in Latin America.  We read a document discussing the percentages of different races in Latin America.  We found that less than 1% was made up of Peninsulares, or people born Europe, who were the wealthiest and attained the highest ranking jobs, while more than half of the population was made up Indian people.  People living in Latin America during this time were very concerned about their race and status.  In fact they were so obsessed that they made a Casta, which described almost every combination of races and what their offspring would be labeled as.  The overall social ladder in Latin America was, in the following order, the Peninsulares, Creoles, Mestizos, Mulattoes, Indians, and African Slaves.  After understanding how much race intertwined with the Latin American culture, we then split into groups and were each assigned a different Latin American revolution.  My group was assigned the revolution in Mexico.  In our groups we created a timeline of events.  When our timelines were complete we were then mixed into new groups that contained students from other groups so we could help teach each other about each other’s revolution.  Thoroughly discussing these revolutions in groups made us see how race was involved in each revolution. 

This is a diagram showing how much of each race made up the population in Latin America.

This is a picture of the Casta System showing several names of offspring when two types of races have children.

This is a picture of my group’s timeline of the Mexican Revolution.

My group selected the Mexican Revolution for independence to study.  The picture below is the timeline that we created.  After we shared our revolutions in our second groups, we then discussed commonalities and differences that we observed among the revolutions.  Some commonalities that we determined were, all of the revolutions were revolts against European countries, all became independent and split ties with Europe, the first rulers to take office after each country was declared independent did not stay in power for too long, and all of the revolutions took pace in the early 1800s.  We were only able to come up with two differences which were, the Brazilian revolution was the least violent, while the other two were very brutal and the revolution in Gran Columbia resulted in several new, separate countries.  However, later on there were smaller countries that branched off from Mexico, like Panama.  Each revolution took different routes to gaining their independence, but race was an issue in all three.  The Mexican revolution was launched by a priest, Miguel Hidalgo, who stated in the “Cry of Delores” that one of the goals of the revolution was racial equality in Mexico.  The revolution in Gran Columbia was started by Simon Bolivar, who was unhappy with discrimination in the country.  He, a crealoes was able to get a wide variety of different racial groups (Indians, Mestizos, and Mulattoes) to unite and fight against the Spanish together.  Unlike the Mexican and Gran Columbian revolutions, race came into in the Brazilian revolution after it had ended.  This was because Padro did not include enough rights in the Constitution, he only allowed Peninsulares to become members in his cabinet.  Because of this, there were rumors of another revolution for racial equality, and Padro flees.  The goals for each revolution were equally about gaining freedom from Europe and about freedom from racial discrimination.

                Today, racial discrimination has lessened, but it is still quite prevalent in society.   People still make judgments based on race in society today.   If someone is dark skinned, people sometimes judge them too quickly and assume they come from a poor background.  In an article about Ruby Bridges, who went to an all-white school back in the 1960s, it is stated that racial discrimination is still around today.  Ruby says, “You almost feel like you’re back in the ‘60s” because schools are segregated again.  Racial discrimination is still found in schools today which means that a person’s, even a child’s, race determines so much about them and their social status, when really it should only be a person’s character that should define them.  I think that is still extremely important to consider the issue of race in our lives today.  Race consumes too many people’s minds and creates a predetermined perspective that blocks them from seeing who someone is beyond their race.  If schools, a place where young students are supposed to learn academics, as well as, ethics, are truly starting to segregate again, then our society needs to seriously reengage our focus on the issue of race once again to stop this from happening.

The Complex Legacy of Toussaint Louverture

In the year of 1863 Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery.  This monumental change in history demonstrates his moral leadership.  In contrast, Hitler who lacked any redeeming quality, had thousands and thousands of people killed in hopes of creating a new race instead of declaring all people free and equal.  Toussaint Louverture was born in the 1740s.  As a young slave he worked as a herder, coachmen, and an overseer of fellow slaves working in the field.  He was eventually granted freedom by his owner and then decided to rent a small coffee plantation.  In 1789, Toussaint emerged as a leader during the rebellions that resulted from the white refusal to end slavery in Saint Domingue.  He encouraged slaves to fight for their freedom.  However, in 1794 France abolished all slavery in the colonies and Toussaint switched his allegiance to France.  However, when Napoleon became emperor he planned to reinstate slavery in Saint Domingue.  Toussaint switched sides yet again and lead an invasion of 21,000 French troops, but was captured and taken to France.  Ironically, Napoleon pulled his troops out of the battle, resulting in a victory for Saint Domingue.  Sadly, Saint Domingue's beloved leader was dying of pneumonia in a French jail.  Toussaint would never know that on January 1, 1804, Haiti, Saint Domingue’s new name, would become an independent nation.  Merriam-Webster defines legacy as, "something that happened in the past or that comes from someone in the past."  Toussaint Louverture should be remembered for his incredible legacy, as a liberator of slaves, ruler of Saint Domingue, and military commander.  Although Toussaint should be remembered for all of these roles, his role as a liberator of slaves is most important.

One of Louverture’s greatest roles in his lifetime was as a liberator of slaves.  In 1791, Toussaint joined the slave revolt in northern Saint Domingue (A).  He was a doctor for the troops and also commanded a small group of rebel soldiers (A).  Toussaint was on Saint Domingue's side at this time, but when France abolished slavery in its colonies, Toussaint and his troops stopped their revolt and switched their allegiance to France (A). Toussaint even went to the length of organizing an army against the British, who were nervous about the ideas of freedom spreading to their colony in Jamaica (A).  Toussaint switched his allegiance to Saint Domingue once again, when there were rumors of Napoleon reinstating slavery by France (A).  All of these actions show that Toussaint obtained and maintained the leadership goals and abilities that would allow him to fight for the abolishment of slavery.  In November 1797, Toussaint writes a letter to the French Directory.  He threatens, "We have known how to confront danger to our liberty, and we will know how to confront death to preserve it" (B).  This threat demonstrates Toussaint's loyalty to helping the slaves gain their freedom even if death is the result. This letter's main purpose is to show Toussaint's role as a liberator of slaves. Article 3, of the Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801, signed by Toussaint Louverture, states "There cannot exist slaves in this territory, servitude is therein forever abolished.  All men are born, live and die free and French" (C).  By signing this Constitution, Toussaint showed that he wanted freedom for slaves.  Toussaint’s role as a liberator of slaves should be included in his legacy because he consistently supported the side that was fighting for the abolishment of slavery throughout his entire life.

Toussaint was a liberator of slaves, but he also became the Ruler of Saint Domingue in the year 1798 (A).  As the new ruler of Saint Domingue, Toussaint had many responsibilities and expectations to withhold to in order to make his people happy.  Article 14 of the Saint Domingue Constitution states, “The colony being essentially agricultural cannot suffer the least disruptions in the works of its cultivation” (C).  By signing this Constitution, Toussaint shows he is going to make sure Saint Domingue prospers.   He knows that in order to maintain the nation’s economy, the plantations needed to be maintained, as well.  He promises that the workers on each plantation will share the revenue with their owner (C).  This promise didn’t completely satisfy the people because even though they were being paid for their labor, they were doing the same exact work as they were doing when they were slaves.  This caused revolts to break out and on November 25, 1801, Toussaint Louverture announces the “Proclamation, 25 November 1801.”  This proclamation addresses the punishments that will happen to anyone who disobeys the laws.  One of the several punishments Toussaint puts in place is, “Any manager or driver of a plantation upon which a foreign cultivator [field worker from another plantation] shall have taken refuge shall denounce him to the captain or commander of the section within 24 hours under penalty of one week in prison” (D).  This states that if an owner of a plantation does not report a refuge worker, than they will have to serve one week in prison.  All of these punishments, although harsh, show Toussaint’s determination to make sure the people of Saint Domingue follow the law.  Toussaint may have been a strict ruler, but he was also a great ruler because he always made sure Saint Domingue, would always prosper.  His great leadership skills made him a remarkable ruler, and should therefore be added to his legacy.

Toussaint was a great ruler of Saint Domingue, but he was also a very talented military commander.  In Madison Smartt Bell’s, Toussaint Louverture: A Biography, 2007, Hyacinthe Moyse’s, Toussaint’s nephew, revolt in the Northern plantations against plantation farming is discussed.  Bell writes the following about Toussaint, “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….Toussaint ordered Moyse’s arrest and had him confined in the fort of Port de Paix” (E).  Making rebel soldiers commit suicide in front of each other and arresting his nephew and ordering his execution by firing squad, does make Toussaint appear to be a malevolent person, but these acts, although ruthless, demonstrate his role as a strong military commander.  Toussaint knew how to direct his soldiers and utilize the right war tactics that made him an unforgettable military commander.  In The Black Man, His Antecedents, His Genius, and His Achievements, 2nd edition, by William Wells Brown, there is a section titled “A Description of Toussaint Louverture.”  This section describes Toussaint’s role as a military commander.  Brown states, “his superior knowledge of the character of his race, his humanity, generosity, and courage, had gained the confidence of all whom he had under his command” (F).  Toussaint’s commanding authority and strong will made people follow him and his orders.  Napoleon wanted to take control of Saint Domingue once again, so between December 1801 and February 1802, France invaded Saint Domingue.  Toussaint and his troops used their guerilla tactics to defeat the French (A).  Brown recounts this amazing war tactic, “Toussaint and his generals at once abandoned the towns, and betook themselves to the mountains, those citadels of freedom in St. Domingue, where the blacks have always proved too much for the whites” (F).  Toussaint and his troops burned the city, so the French would not be able to find any resources that would help them win the invasion, and then fled to the mountains where the French would have a disadvantage because they were not familiar with the territory.  Not only did Toussaint have a courageous character that made him a great military commander, he was also very smart when it came to war tactics.  Toussaint’s role as a military commander should be added to his legacy because of his smart tactical abilities and persuasive characteristics.

       

Toussaint Louverture was a remarkable man.  He grew up as a slave in his beloved Saint Domingue, and then went on to become a liberator of slaves, ruler of Saint Domingue, and a military commander.  All of these roles contribute to Toussaint’s legacy.  He moved from Saint Domingue’s side, to the French’s side, and then back to Saint Domingue’s side. Although it seems that Toussaint was inconsistent, he was actually being quite consistent because he was always fighting for the side that was for the abolishment of slavery. This shows how important his role as a liberator of slaves was in history.  Toussaint also became the ruler of Saint Domingue and governed the nation so that it would prosper, even if this meant enforcing strict laws that resulted in revolts, at times.  His legacy didn’t stop there, he was also a very skillful military commander, making decisions that may have seem ruthless at the time, but were actually very intelligent in terms of military tactics.  There is a lot to remember about Toussaint Louverture, but his role as a liberator of slaves is most important to his legacy.  This is because his entire life was focused on helping slaves gain their freedom which he accomplished.  Becoming a ruler of a nation or a military commander was never part of his plan; these roles came along to aid in and augment his key role as a liberator of slaves.  

Source:

Background Essay.

“Merriam-Webster.”  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legacy.  11/13/14.  

DocumentA.  Created from various sources.

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

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

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

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

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

Revolutions Aren't Always Revolutionary

Last year we learned about the American and French Revolutions.  Most recently, in history class, we focused on several Atlantic Revolutions.  The essential question for this unit is, "Were the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded?"  We began this lesson by discussing Alexis de Tocqueville’s, who was a liberal Frenchman, comment, “We are sleeping on a volcano.  Do you not see that the Earth trembles anew?  A wind of revolution blows, the storm is on the horizon.”  We analyzed this quote on a symbolic level and classified the wind as the ideas of the liberals and nationals that were starting to be spread around and heard by people who were unhappy with conservatism. The storm in the horizon could be interpreted as the revolution.  We also connected this quote to a map that showed armies being sent in around countries in Europe trying to repress revolutions.  The liberals and nationals are walking on a sleeping volcano, and as they spread their ideas, more thoughts about starting revolutions started to spread throughout Europe.  After talking about Alexis de Tocqueville’s comment, we went on to discuss Klemens Von Metternich’s comment, “When France sneezes, Europe catches a cold.”  The sneeze that this metaphor references is the ideas that Napoleon created in France, after the revolution.  Some of these ideas were meritocracy, more available education, and the elimination of serfdom and government labels.  Napoleon spread around these ideas, “or germs”, through Europe and the Europeans agree with his ideals and caught this “cold” of revolution.  Most Historians believed that all of these revolutions were failures.  We then made a timeline of successes and failures that documented the complete success, partial success, partial failure, and complete failures.  We were then divided into groups and each given one of five different revolutions; the 1825 Decembrist Revolt, 1830 France rebellion, 1848 France rebellion, 1848 Frankfurt Assembly, and the 1848 Hungry rebellion.  In our groups, we each read background information and skimmed the primary sources on our topic in order to take notes on the country, date, goals, opponent, outcome, and reasons for a success or failure for each of our rebellions.  Then, we read our primary sources to find quotes that described the goals, opponent, and outcome of our topics and wrote sourcing information about the author.  After each group had completed their research, we then started to create a survey monkey with questions about our topic.  We then completed each group’s survey monkey to gain a general consensus about each rebellion.

This is an image of the Frankfurt Assembly.

            My group was assigned the 1848 Frankfurt Assembly.  This assembly took place in Frankfurt, Germany in the years of 1848 to 1849.  Some of the goals of the Frankfurt Assembly were to have a national unity and liberal reform.  Liberals wanted to have a constitutional Monarchy or a republic.  The goal of the rebels was squashed by the King.  It is even said in "“Between Myself and My Pope..." (1848)", “There, the king made it perfectly clear that he had no intention of allowing his God-given rule to be diminished by a piece of paper, namely a constitution.”  While Nationalists wanted a united German state.  Hence, there were two conflicting groups of reformers involved in this assembly.  Even though there were two different groups of rebels, they were both opposing the same opponent; the conservatives and King Federik William IV of Prussia.  The outcome of the Frankfurt Assembly was that the rebels went against the conservatives which resulted in many deaths and people fleeing to the United States.  People fled to the U.S. because there was a promise of a democratic government and economic opportunity in this country.  Another reason why they fled to America was because the revolt was crushed and there was no hope for reform.  These outcomes made the Frankfurt Assembly an obvious failure.  The conservatives crushed the revolt in the early stages.  In Karl Marx’s, “The Assembly at Frankfurt”, he states, “The resolution passed the day before yesterday has destroyed the Frankfurt Parliament.”  Another reason for why this assembly was a failure was because there were two groups of rebels that couldn't come up with shared goals together.  The liberals and nationalists also didn't have an army because Federik William IV sent an army to shut down the assembly.  The results of our Survey Monkey were very good, so our class now has a general foundation of what went on in the Frankfurt Assembly.

This is is a screenshot from one of our questions from my group's Survey Monkey.

To answer the essential question, I do think that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really were failures as many historians have concluded.  The Frankfurt Assembly of 1848 accomplished nothing; the two groups of rebels never came to a consensus on how to revolt against the conservatives which led, ultimately, to a failed revolt.  Worse than the Frankfurt Assembly, was the Decembrist Revolt in Russia in the year of 1825.  After Tsar Nicholas I, who preferred the military rather than politics, passed away and the rebel’s idea of assassinating was diminished, and instead of Constantine being elected as emperor, Tsar Alexander became the next Tsar.  Russians had few rights and were never granted a constitution.  When the rebels revolted Nicholas fired back and the rebels lost, continuing their life of misery.  Besides the revolts in Germany and Russia, there were other failed revolts, such as the French Revolution.  This revolution, that sparked all others to fall in place, didn't end the way the radicals had hoped.  The peasants revolted against the monarchy, but by doing so, thousands of people died.  I agree with the historians when they say that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were really failures because when you look at the majority of these rebellions, they all had flaws, rebel groups couldn't agree to unify, they had no army, they were squashed by the government, or the outcome resulted in thousands of deaths. 

Sources:

Background Information.

“”Between Myself and My People…” (1848).” 

“Speech to the Frankfurt Assembly, 1848.”  Johann Gustav Droysen.

“The Assembly at Frankfurt.”  Karl Marx.  November 22.

“Friedrich Wilhelm IV, King of Prussia: Proclamation of 1849.”

“The German Fatherland.”  Ernst Moritz.