In this week’s reading Davis and Garrigus
cover the impact the Haitian revolution had upon the abolishment of slavery in
the New World. As most people know, the most well known reason for slavery’s
abolishment was the North’s victory during the Civil War, which led to the
granted freedom for all slaves in America. Yet both Davis and Garrigus
highlight just how significant the revolution was to the following Civil war
and abolishment of slavery.
Davis focuses on how the
revolution’s impact developed in American’s minds. After the American
Revolution, the new country was unstable, and Davis shows just how unsafe
Americans felt upon hearing of slaves uprising against their owners in Haiti
(159-160). This sense of instability even led to huge amounts of money spent to
further arm the white colonists in America, an event led by President
Washington himself. It is through the first section of Davis’s reading that we
continue to question whether early supporters of abolition truly had their
priorities straight quite yet. Davis further pushes this notion by presenting
the thought that the slave trade’s reopening in South Carolina was greatly
opposed by the rest of the nation. Instead of objecting based on the cruelty of
the slave trade, Davis believes the objection came from the fear that a larger
slave population would simply overpower the white slave owners, resulting in a
successful (on the slaves part) revolution that would destroy the young,
fragile nation.
Next Davis turns to explain why the
Haitian Revolution even came to be. His thoughts are the slaves found the
perfect moment to strike upon their masters, during a time when the government
and economy was suffering from the fallout of the French Revolution, along with
many other causes. What Davis identifies that is most interesting, however, is
how many of dichotomies between class and race in Haiti were later reflected in
the United States. Davis shows how white, lower class Haitian colonists found
themselves above wealthier freed slaves, simply due to the racially driven
society created in Haiti. Davis even touches upon how freed colored slaves were
given less privilege and were forbidden from certain areas in society (164-166).
My question in regard to Davis’s observations would be, did the United States
model such practices of discrimination off of Haiti, or were these practices
simply the norm for white supremacists?
Garrigus uses a more focused and
narrow lens when looking at Julien Raimond’s life. Garrigus’s paper ties in
very well with Davis’s chapter, where Davis sets a more broad view upon the
revolution, while Garrigus narrows the view, in particular analyzing the social
issues that arose between classes and races in Haiti. As mentioned, black and
mixed race Haiti citizens, regardless of their class or social standing, had
virtually no societal rights. Raimond, a wealthy plantation owner himself (even
having owned over 100 slaves), fought the French government for his and others’
rights. Some important points Garrigus brings to the table are the “schism
among the governing and planter elite” (1), Raimond’s help “implement[ing] a
new labor system to help replace plantation slavery (2), and Raimond’s
categorization as a freed slave simply because of his race (5).
First, when Garrigus describes the
split between the governing and plantation owners, he implies there was
originally a relationship between the two. Interestingly, Raimond also reflects
this schism. As shown on page 2, Raimond originally heavily supported the
French Government along with a lack of support for freed slaves. It wasn’t
until the large amount of discrimination toward all blacks that Raimond broke
from the government and allied with other blacks, freed slaves or not, to fight
for racial rights. Raimond’s actions reflected that of many elite plantation
owners who were also discriminated based upon their race. This marked the
biggest mistake made by the French government, ultimately resulting in the
Haitian Revolution.
Second, Raimond helped create a new
labor system to replace plantation slavery, which caught my attention.
Unfortunately, Garrigus doesn’t speak further about this (good opportunity to
ask him Tuesday though). My question is; if this system looked efficient and
viable, then why was it never put to action in the United States? It seems to
me that any alternative to war would have been attempted, so why is it that it
wasn’t attempted? If it was, then what happened that made it so insignificant (did
it fail?)?
Lastly, the overall disregard of
class and self-earned wealth that the French displayed definitely seemed to
have led to the revolution. Raimond again exemplifies this on page five when he
is regulated under a freed slave system based only on his skin color. Overall,
Garrigus aptly displays how significant of a character Julien Raimond was to
the Haitian revolution, who was a perfect reflection of the elite plantation owners
who allied with slaves for a common goal: to earn their civil rights. It is through
both readings we see how Haiti’s events (discrimination, revolution, etc.) look
very similar to that of the United States. This prompts me to ask, are these
common events linked because it is how abolitionists and supporters of slavery
act in all situations, regardless of their location or situation? Or is it
rather that these events were simply coincidental?
I thought the Davis and Garrigus readings complemented each other quite well this week. As Jacob points out, Garrigus narrows his view on Julien Raimond to depict the life surrounding Haitian plantation slavery, which I thought was very helpful in understanding the complex interactions of wealthy, colored slave owners and their connection with other prominent political figures such as Grégoire, Ogé, and Toussaint. One aspect brought up in both of the readings that I found interesting was the point that “Raimond was not a radical opponent of slavery” (Garrigus) and he kept profiting from his former plantations even after he sold them; subsequently, Raimond’s “cause for racial equality became unintentionally fused with anti slavery when they received strong support from the elite white Amis des Noirs” (Davis 162). This idea is reinforced through Raimond’s demand for proving himself as an intellectual equal to the white men and being referred to as a “Sieur” or “quadroon” opposed to the demeaning term “mullato.”
ReplyDeleteRaimond proves himself to be an elite forward thinking political figure in his pamphlets to save Saint-Domingue. Jacob also notes that Raimond “helped create a new labor system” but I think that these pamphlets were merely ideas presented to the National Assembly, such as the idea for gradual emancipation of slaves in a market-based economy (Garrigus). In regards to why this system wouldn’t fit into United States slavery, I think that the purpose of Raimond and his supporters, who wanted to reform racial discrimination for free men of color while still practicing slavery, is much different from American abolitionist motives which were to immediately end the practice of slavery.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jacob’s first question I believe that the discrimination that appeared in the US was not a consequence of any one circumstance and was not modeled on Haiti. The discrimination that appeared in the US was rooted in the economics of the plantation system and the slave trade while also having European influences seep into the culture of the new country. This idea is also supported by the Garrigus reading. He depicts a country transitioning from one that had slaves but was not highly segregated to one that escalated into a highly discriminatory society. Discrimination existed in what would become the US long before the Haitian revolution, which only contributed to the growing fear that white supremacists harbored about those they were abusing.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jacob’s other question I believe that by the time an alternate to the plantation system was created both society in the US and society in Haiti was too entrenched in a mindset that viewed slavery and their current system as the only profitable solution. Given that they would not have been quick to change their minds about how they went about their every day lives and managed their slaves. The same themes ran through both the Haitian Revolution and the American Civil war but the two conflicts got to the endpoint in very different ways.
As someone who knew very little about the Haitian Revolution prior to this, I found both of this week’s readings very enlightening and well paired. The most interesting reading for me was Garrigus’ when he talked about Julien Raimond’s thought-provoking position as both a slaveholder and someone who was considered a lesser person simply because of his race when he was clearly of higher financial standing. This brings me to Jacob’s first question about whether or not young America based its special brand of white supremacy on Haiti’s—my answer to this question is what I’ve already stated: young America had its own unique kind of white supremacy borne of fear from the threat of slave revolts, the intimidating idea of living among the “Other,” and the slave owners’ desire to retain power when they were outnumber by their slaves. However, one could argue that these were points of concern for the French as well in Haiti to some degree. So, while it strikes me that American and French white supremacy were different, they seemed to stem from the same common fears and concerns.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to see that people opposed slavery, not because they found it to be morally wrong or because they were personally against, but because they were scared that a slave revolt could occur, and people knew that ruin the new nation they were trying to build. This reminds me of the conversation we had in class about how it was difficult to deal with the issue of slavery because people were afraid and didn’t know how to try to control it.
ReplyDeleteTo answer Jacob’s first question, I don’t think that the United States modeled their behavior off of Haiti, they were just the norm for white supremacy because the point is that no matter how low-class a white person is, they always wanted to know that there was someone who was below them or someone who they still had power over. This idea came naturally to Americans, and it also isn’t likely that they wanted to be like Haiti because their behaviors lead them to a big slave revolt, which is something the United States was trying to avoid.
In response to Jacob’s last question, I think that the two readings were good parallels of each other because Davis looked to explain the relation between America and Haiti, and Garrigus focused on and told the story of only Raimond who was technically part of the lower class but made his was up until eventually becoming a well-respected slave owner. I think they are connected because they show the effects that the revolution had on the U.S. and on Haiti. The two authors just used different methods and stories to get the point across.
I agree with Kayla that both readings complimented each other and offered excellent insight into the Haitian Revolution. In Garrigus' essay, Raimond's shift from a planter with 100 slaves to an abolitionist shows the change happening overtime not only in one person but also exemplifies the shift in ideology in Haiti. Slavery in Haiti differs from American slavery because of the intermingling of black and white people. In Garrigus' essay, he mentions mulattos and quarterons. The mixture of two ethnicities shows the ambiguity surrounding racial identity in Haiti. Then in Davis' text, we see the impact of the Haitian Revolution on American slavery. He describes it as a "turning point in history" where the capabilities of the black race were established and it scared the white Americans who supported slavery.
ReplyDeleteIn addressing Jacob’s final question regarding overlaps with revolution and abolition in the United States, I agree very much with TJ. What I took away from both Davis and Garrigus was that the setting in Saint-Domingue was much less open to the complete abolition of slavery as a main source of labor. The revolution, and the ideas of Julien Raimond seem to clash with what we see as the infant abolitionist movement in the United States through each’s destination, but also from the view of the supporters. From my perspective it seemed that there was overwhelming support from slave masters and slaves alike in Saint-Domingue, whereas not even slaves seemed to be the ones behind abolition movements in the United States.
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, I was compelled by the sentence on the second page of Garrigus’s essay that addressed the main reasons why Raimond wasn’t viewed as a father of the Haitian nation, or a national hero. His intermingling and interaction with European people, things, and thought seemed to be the main reasons why, but this struck a cord with me in regards to the conversation that took place about Equaino, and whether or not he was hypocritical in his writing about slavery from his newly adopted European perspective. Similarly, how hypocritical do you think that Raimond actually is in this case, and does that create a conflict with his credibility, and the role his ideas ultimately played in the Haitian Revolution?
Similarly to Equiano, I don't think calling Raimond a hypocrite would be a fair assessment of his motives or purposes during the events of the Haitian Revolution. Garrigus goes into great detail about Raimond's numerous expenditures on slaves and land that he believed would help elevate himself to the level of the colonial and continental whites.
DeleteRaimond's actions were generally self-serving, or designed for the betterment of his social class, as Garrigus notes that Raimond "argued that free people of color were whites' natural allies against an enslaved workforce." Raimond was not attempting to end slavery or even racism as a whole, just try to secure more rights and privileges for wealthy colored people of the island.
When I was considering the question at the end of the post I questioned if the reason that Raimond is not considered more of a hero is because many people like to view their heroes as almost saintly. This is not to say that all of them were but the darker parts of their histories are often glossed over in favor of more heroic stories. This leads to holes in modern day information (i.e. Columbus day, the fact that the founding fathers owned slaves and slept around). Given that I believe that Raimond should not be viewed as completely hypocritical, at least not more than any other historical figure.
DeleteRaimond merely lived the life that he was given and he cannot be punished for not renouncing the slave trade from infancy. His views progressed with changes in his society and that cannot be discredited. No matter how he got there Raimond made a difference and should get the credit for that even if his motives were not always in the right place.
To try to answer your final question, I would posit that the sort of abolitionist behavior exhibited in the reading about Haiti can be found in many other slaveholding environments, most notably the United States.
ReplyDeleteIn the Garrigus packet, much emphasis is placed on Raimond's class seperation between him and the more impoverished blacks of the island. Raimond himself tries on multiple occasions to distance himself from these blacks and associate himself with the wealthy upper class. Raimond's main argument for abolition was not based on compassionate or moral grounds, but rather for the economic and political betterment of what would be Haiti as a whole.
This approach is very similar to the approach adopted by early American abolitionists, especially the Free Soil Party, who objected to slavery on the grounds that it hurt the economy by providing much stiffer competition for free, paid, white labor. There were also abolitionists who simply wanted to do away with slavery because it was a major point of contention in the contemporary political dialogue and they could see that it was driving the nation apart.
In many slaveholding societies, the primary argument for abolition was often not based on the standpoint of human rights, but on economic and political prosperity.
In regards in Jacob G's first question, I do not believe that what happened in America was simply modeled after what happened in Haiti. Although I think the two countries had similar models of discrimination as pointed out in Davis, I agree with Julia that the U.S. still tended to focus all of its attention on the financial aspect as opposed to the racist aspect. If it were true that the U.S. was intentionally trying to model their methods of discrimination off of Haiti, that would mean that the U.S. was acting based on motives independent of finances. If the U.S. were to model its discrimination after anyone, it would be after England as we discussed last week.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jacob G's second to last question and the point made by Jacob, I did find it intriguing that Garrigus discussed how Raimond developed a strong alternative plan, but it never really caught on, especially in America as pointed out. I believe a lot of this is due to the fact that Raimond could have been considered a hypocrite as Jacob pointed out. Raimond personally "owned over one hundred slaves" (1), he had a "strong attachment to France" (2), he was in favor of military action, and he had a borderline policy on "making citizens of recently-emancipated slaves" (2). Because Raimond was greeted with so much skepticism, it made him a difficult leader to follow, which is why Garrigus pointed out that he is not generally considered to be one of the "father of the Haitian nation" (2).
I do not believe that events like these were sheer coincidences, but I also am not one to believe that all events happen the same way. Discrimination and the war against slavery happened differently everywhere it occurred. Although there will be some common cross-overs no matter what, the way the events take place will vary from case to case. For example, although the different levels of darker skin color did account for some social standing in America, the separation of the mulattos and the quadroons, etc... was much more distinct in Haiti.
Harry, the bit at the beginning of your comment regarding how the discrimination was based mainly off of economics seems to be just plain wrong in contrast with what we have discussed earlier. When I picture a system of discrimination based off of economics, I see the system of feudal lords and peasants in Europe during the medieval period. If I were to roll this economic discrimination over to America, which you have said is the case, I picture a system where the wealth of a person is the most important regardless of their race. I definitely don’t think this is true because the idea is essentially that the black slaves are subordinate to whites regardless of wealth or living conditions or anything of this sort. In fact, I would venture to say that this discriminatory system held largely held true in the South until the Sixties.
DeleteIn response to Jacob’s first question, I do not think that America explicitly based their form of discrimination off Haiti. Although Davis does point out some very clear similarities between the two forms of slavery, I think that this discrimination is just a side effect of slavery. However, a lot of people have said that the think the racial hierarchy of slavery to be purely based off economics. However, I remember last year when we learned about Bacon’s Rebellion, a common interpretation of that even is that it was an attempt to create tensions. For example, both black slaves and white indentures servants rose up together, and the aftermath of the uprising was the hierarchy in which whites were socially higher than blacks, regardless of their status as slave or indentured servant. In this sense, it seems to me like there is an argument to be made that the racial hierarchy in the United States was not purely based off economics, although I do not believe it was modeled after Haiti.
ReplyDeleteAnother similarity between Haiti and the United states that I found interesting was in the motives behind anti-slavery persons. In the Garrigus packet, he discusses how Raimond sought abolition for his own reasons, much in the same way that many upper class Americans sought abolition not because of its immorality, but because they thought it would be better for the nation’s economic health.
Like Matt explained, American slavery was never based off of racism in Haiti. The discrimination in the United States appeared to be more financial than racial. However, the financial factor did also appear in Haiti and Raimond attempts to address it with his alternative plan to prevent the collapse of the economy. Since his plan was never implemented, his role as an important member in society made more impact in the Haitian Revolution than the alternative plan. It is interesting how he was never seen as an important figure in the Revolution due to his loyalty to France.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Harry's post, it seems like Raimond wasn't seen as a hypocrite during the eighteenth century due to the mindset of the people who viewed slavery as the only profitable system and not as immoral but justifiable. Maybe we see his position as a slave owner as hypocrticial now but before, many people probably did not. Historians have not associated Raimond with the fathers of the Haitian nation due to his loyalty to France and reluctance to make the recently-emancipated slaves citizens. I think that now you can see his actions as hypocritical due to the fact that he was trying to achieve rights for colored people but at the same time oppressing his own slaves. Did his fight for civil rights have more personal reasons instead of fighting against the institution of slavery itself?
I think you bring up a thought-provoking point when you point out that Raimond wasn't seen as an important figure in the Haitian Revolution because of his ties to France, and while this is entirely correct, I also think that in addition to your comment, TJ brought up a good point when he answered Jacob's question about why Raimond's pamphlets to save Saint-Domingue weren't something that boosted Raimond's significance. The pamphlets were more ideas than actions. I also agree that Raimond does come across as hypocritical to us, but again that brings morality into an argument where there seems to be quite a lack of morality, considering one could argue that Raimond's actions were at least partly for his own benefit. In my eyes, since he had worked so hard to be seen as equal to the white men and wasn't due to his race, personal reasons for civil rights would make sense for him. Therefore, in response to your question, I think Raimond had more personal reasons, as it seems many of the figures/peoples we're learning about did in reference to civil rights.
DeleteIn response to Micky's post, I agree that Raimond was not seen as a father of the Haitian nation because of his loyalty to France and his reluctance to make the newly emancipated slaves citizens, but these two points I believe demonstrate that Raimond was hypocritical. Although people at the time may not have referred to him as a hypocrite, the same logic applied then that applies now. It also could not have helped his case that at one point, Raimond "owned over one hundred slaves" (1). So although at the time Raimond may not have been directly called a hypocrite, he was rather hypocritical.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question and Matt's final point, I believe that his initial fight for civil rights was probably more personal, but I do not believe that it was always personal. If Raimond truly was only fighting for personal reasons, he would have stopped after he got what he wanted, but because he kept fighting and publishing, it became more evident that his ultimate goal was fighting for the people. As Garrigus points out, Raimond "convinced French revolutionaries . . . to extend civil rights to those free men in the colonies" and "was the first colonist to advance the idea that the Caribbean people should be recognized as citizens, regardless of their ancestry or racial origins" (2). Although Raimond may have had some personal motives, his motives were primarily fighting against slavery.
Although, I do think that there is an argument to be made, such as what Trevor put forth, that Raimond may not have objected to the morality of slavery, but rather the negative impact it had on the Haitian economy. Were Raimond's motives for the sake of Haiti's economy? Or were they simply for moral reasons?
In regards to the similarities between Haitian and United States slavery that both Jacob G. and Harry discuss, I think it is important to differentiate the cause of Raimond opposed to the cause of abolitionists such as Grégoire and “Les Amis des Noirs.” As Jacob G. references the discrimination and disruption of blacks leading to a revolution in both Haiti and United States do have some similarities; however, these actions were not originally part of Raimond’s cause, which was to end racial discrimination against “wealthy, light-skinned free people” of Saint-Domingue, the “new whites” of their society. This is why I believe Raimond can be seen as hypocritical (as Micky and Harry reference), because he is not formally against the institution of slavery, for the reason that he sees himself far above the societal status of a fully black slave. Harry states “if Raimond truly was only fighting for personal reasons, he would have stopped after he got what he wanted” and I disagree with this statement because at the end of the Garrigus reading it explicitly states “Julien Raimond did not live to see the establishment of racial equality that would accompany the new regime” which demonstrates that his main motive was not to fight slavery but to “extend civil rights to those free men in the colonies.” Julien Raimond was primarily fighting for an elite group of “light-skinned” free people of color, making him not hypocritical for owning slaves but rather an economically progressive businessman.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Harry’s point made saying Raimond was hypocritical, I have to disagree. Raimond’s opinions upon the rights of slaves only changed due to the evolving situation in Haiti. Many influential people have done the same, as Lincoln did with his views on slavery (originally thought of African colonization) and Ben Franklin in regard to originally supporting continued relations with the British. After many events, such as the North’s success during the Civil war or the lack of Franklin’s representation in Parliament, they changed their views to the more popular ones known today. Simply labeling Raimond as a hypocrite doesn’t take into account that he originally believed in the social class system until it had an adverse effect upon him. Although ironic and somewhat humorous, Raimond simply changed opinions for what he saw as the optimal outcome for himself.
ReplyDeleteMy reply to Harry’s (very good) question would be that Raimond seems to have acted toward the Haitian government for both moral and economic reasons. While Raimond does fight for the equality of all races in the end, he does seem to be prompted to rebel only when he takes notice toward a lack of representation as an elite plantation owner. This is a question I definitely think multiple people should address since it makes you think about the many reasons Raimond may have rebelled, and what evidence in his life may support these reasons.
Harry brings up an excellent point about the life of Raimond. From what I gathered in the reading, I would say that Raimond rebelled for moral reasons. French society in the 1700s was engulfed in the Enlightenment (of which it took the lead on) and talk of revolution against the monarchy. Radicalism and ideas about liberty--which came mainly from writers like John Locke, whose proposals influenced much of 1700s philosophy--abounded in French society and fueled the fires of many societies to rebel against the local hierarchy. I think Raimond, who lived right in the middle of all this crazyness, in the aftermath of the American Revolution as well as the French Revolution, saw that the people around him were not awarded the same kind of luxury. So, logically, he decided that slavery was completely incongruous with the rest of French society, whose new motto was "liberty, equality, brotherhood."
ReplyDeleteIn response to whether Raimond was hypocritical or not I think you have to keep in mind that although he had a strong influence on the revolution, he is not seen as “the father of the Haitian nation” he was loyal to France, he owned slaves himself, and he was fighting for personal reasons to begin with.
ReplyDeleteJacob G, although I do agree that Raimond was influenced by moral and economic purposes, I think Raimond still seems hypocrital, so you say that calling him a hypocrite doesn’t show that he believed in the social class system and then you say he simply changed his mind so wouldn’t that just support the claim that he was hypocritical?
Although the two texts seemed to complement each other very well and many people agreed with that, it is interesting to see that it still created a debate on the intentions of slave owners and now of abolitionists. I think that a constant idea that has been brought up in discussion is that economics is the foundation of most of the decisions made about slavery. For example, a slave owner would have slaves for a profit, and some wanted slavery to be abolished for their personal gain. I guess my question about this would be, did economic wealth or bigger effect of the decisions that slave owners, abolitionists, and even the government as a whole? Or did the two have about the same effect because they were influential factors for everyone?
Perhaps the fact that most everyone is taking a side on whether or not Raimond acted on moral or pragmatic reasons is indicative of the complexities of the situation. Today, it is easy to superimpose a narrative onto his intentions and actions, however, at the time, these narratives may not have existed.
ReplyDeleteThere seem to be too many incongruities in his actions for him to have one particular motive. Toward the end of the Garrigus packet, he says that Raimond "argued that the extension of civil rights to free color citizens would reinforce, not destroy, the slave system in the colony." In this sense, it seems as if Raimond’s pro-civil-rights attitude was entirely for economic reasons, such as the strengthening of slavery as an institution. Further, his idea of gradual emancipation in which slaves could work to buy their own freedom further shows how even though Raimond may not have had entirely moral motives, his ideas were still a large departure from most forms of slavery. However, in this form of emancipation, Raimond does specify that he did not believe slaves should be able to become citizens, which complicates this situation even more.
So although Raimond was not altruistically moral, and can be considered hypocritical (as many others have called him), I do not think we can place those dualities on his actions because he lived during a time where slavery was acceptable and not hypocritical.