Haitian Revolution and Its Implications

After reading about the Haiti revolution, I wanted to go into more detail about the revolution. The Haitian revolution stands as the only successful slave revolution. There have been numerous attempts off black revolts, but this revolution stands as the only one in which the blacks were able to overthrow the government. This truly was the mark of the new era, when blacks, people who for years were thought as an inferior "race". When the blacks were able to take over the government, it proved to the rest of the world that the blacks were capable of being great and they were tired of being treated as inferiors. Even though blacks were still treated as crap for the next 100 years, this revolution would leave a mark on the world, and the white mans' view on the black slaves. I think slave masters now figured out that they would have to understand the blacks and give them some respect or else they would revolt like they did Haiti. I found it interesting that blacks choose to revolt at this specific time because the French Government had just underwent a revolution and the new government that was instilled now got to feel how it was to be on the other side of the revolution.

Miguel Gregori Antonio Ignacio Hidalgo y costilla y galaaga Mondarte Villasenor

Miguel Gregori Antonio Ignacio Hidalgo y Costilla y Galaaga Mondarte Villasenor also known as Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla or simply Miguel Hidalgo was a Mexican priest. His nickname was the Father of the Nation of Mexico. He was also a leader of the Mexican War of Independence. In 1810, he led a revolt against the peninsulares for the Virgin of Guadalupe. They disbanded after encounters with the criollos and Mexican townspeople. Hidalgo was captured on March 21, 1811 and executed on July 30^th. His rebellion was the beginning of the Mexican war of Independence. After his death, many others took up his footsteps that brought down the colonial governments of Spain of Mexico.

The French Revolution: Louisiana Purchase

We talked a little in class about the Louisiana purchase but I decided to gather a little more information about it. It was mainly the middle of the United States (as seen in the map to the left). It was owned by France and then Napoleon decided to sell it to America. The size of the United States, at the time, doubled in size. This purchase we executed by President Thomas Jefferson, and this was a big step that he took towards the growth and development of The United States. People then decided to expand and travel to their newly owned land. They explored and found new animals and new places for settlement. Once people began to settle in the land of The Louisiana Purchase, they debated over slavery. They came to the agreement of slave states and free states. So, that meant that the people in the slave states were forced to be slaves and didn't have very many rights, and they tried to escape to the free states. The free states did not have slavery, which made it be a place where people wanted to escape to because slavery was obviously not something people wanted to do.

Sources:

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/maps/louisianapurchase/

Re: Carson

Well Carson, touché.

I now see your point and I do agree with that the AR was a trendsetter for the FR. one point I would like to argue is that the Americans had help from multiple different countries like the French, Spain, and Holland. All three of these countries gave the Americans weapons, money and technology to fuel their victory. I think without the help of these 3 countries, the Americans would have never been able to defeat the British. On the other hand, France didn’t have any help form any other countries and had multiple armies take advantage of the fact that France was in a revolution. I think that with the aid of some of Frances allies, this transition of governments would have been more cleaner, and smoother. Using bloodshed and violence was the only way that the French could send a message to the hierarchy of France that they were not going to tolerate being bossed around any more. They were able to get their point across through extreme violence, they were able to successfully remove the hierarchy form France and clean out the class system that kept millions of French people under poor circumstances. This was shown when the French people began to call each other citizen instead of monsieur and master.

RE: Cal The AR and FR

This a response to Cal's Blog

Cal, despite your arguements I disagree with you. I think that the AR was a much more truiphmt victory in terms of the two revolutions. The AR was a trend setter that started the chain and without the AR the FR would of never happened because the citizens of France would of never seen the Americans fight back, so they would of never gotten any ideas of revolting. To the common people, a revolution is a very big deal and the Americans were bold enough to start teeir own revolution and I personally believe that started a chain of revoltutions and without that first dominoe falling, then the rest of the dominoes cannot fall. But I do agree with you that the FR was more a bloodbath, but that is because the French had no other way to go about it. The Americans were prepared, having weapons and arms, but the only way the French could go about it was by just using common house tools like knifes, making it much bloodier. Also, the French had a poor organization, so when they did take control of France, they had everyone still running around and having the ideas of revolt in their head when the Americans had a much more through government and thought out plan. 

Re: Carson

This is a response to Carsons blog about the FR and AR

I, Cal Maruyama, personally believe that the FR was more of a patriotic triumph than the AR. the people were able to fully liberate themselves form more than 500 years of tyranny, whereas America faced 200 years of cruel ruling. The French were able to send a message to the world that they were not going to tolerate being treated like doody. The poor citizens of France were revolting the statuses that controlled almost the whole society of France. Overall I thought the french rev was of more importance than the AR even thought the AR came first.

American Revolution vs. French Revolution

The American Revolution was based upon the fact that the British were taxing them without their consent on items like tea, paper and stamps. America felt like the British had no general presence in America, aside from the negative policies, which drained American resources. This caused a large revolt, because America felt completely separated from Britain, and wanted to secede from the empire. Britain was infuriated with this idea, and sent soldiers quell the uprising. This then led to events such as the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, and then the Declaration of Independence.

The French helped America with their revolution, which then led to bankruptcy. This bankruptcy caused Louis XVI to tax the 2nd and 3rd Estates. The Bourgeoisie and peasants felt poorly represented, and demanded a National Assembly. Louis XVI had this assembly, but once he head that the 3rd Estate was pushing for a more Democratic nation, he locked the 100 representatives outside, forcing them to meet in a tennis court. Thus causing the very heart of the French Revolution. And it was this sort of uprising that triggered both the French and American revolutions. It was due to the royal's ignorance that the whole structure collapsed. As my favorite comedian, Eddie Izzard says it: "The French structure during it's revolution slowly collapsed, like a flan in the cupboard." And so it did. But in the end, the French were left with little, while America was totally revamped and ready to rebuild. And one crucial point that separates the French revolution from the American, is the fact that for the French, they dug their own grave. They didn't need to help America, but they did. And so this whole turn of events came to be.

Powerpoint/Movie

Tomorrow, on 9/16/2009, I will be doing a 10(ish) minute Powerpoint + Video presentation on Native Americans and Colonialism.

-Cy