A great leader is required to have many impressive qualities to be considered great. Abraham Lincoln is remembered for countless qualities that helped him to lead America in the best way possible. One of his more prominent achievements is that liberated the slaves from the southern parts of the United States. A leader whose achievement parallels that of Abraham Lincoln is Toussaint Louverture. Louverture was the ruler of Saint Domingue, but his more impressive accomplishments are what he did for his country as ruler, and even before. He, with the help of his army, was crucial in the liberating of the slaves that took up far more than the majority of the population of Saint Dominuge. He also proved to be an extraordinary military commander, and, although harsh, did an incredible job. Toussaint Louverture should be remembered, not only as the leader of Saint Domingue, but more importantly for his liberation of the slaves and his work as military commander.
Tousaint Louverture was born a slave, but was eventually given his freedom an and in 1790 he joined a slave revolt in the northern region of Saint Domingue, and in 1792 he was given the title of military commander. In 1794 he changed who he was fighting against. Previously, he had led his troops against the French, but when the french abolished slavery, he began to support them in hopes that it would end slavery in Saint Domingue. After the French revolution ended, Napoleon sent troops to Saint Domingue to reinstate slavery, and Louverture reacted to this by writing a letter to the French directory. In this letter he demanded that the people of Saint Domingure would not be re-enslaved, and if they would continue trying to enforce this, the people would not hesitate to react and fight back. A powerful line from his letter says "Could men who have once enjoyed the benefits of liberty look calmly while it was taken from them." This shows how strong his views were against slavery, and how far he was willing to go to protect his people from ever having to suffer through it again.
Toussaint Louverture was a military genius that challenged the seemingly invincible Napoleon Bonaparte. Unfortunatley, some of the choices that he made caused the former slaves to distrust him. The entire economy of Saint Dominuge was based on its sugar plantations, which were responsible for 40% of the worlds coffee. The former slaves had worked on these plantations, and to keep the economy afloat, Louverture required that they continue to work at the plantations, this time for pay. In October 1801, rebels revolted against this requirement by massacring a lot of whites. Louverture reacted by forcing some of the rebels to kill themselves and having his nephew executed. Although this is cruel and extreme, it shows how tough Louverture was and how far he was willing to go to do what he believed was in the best interest for the people he was leading. Another example of his military instincts that benefitted his people was, when the French were coming to the city of Samana to re-enslave the people of Saint Domingue, Louverture and his troops burned the city down to prevent them from succeeding. When the French arrived in the city, "they found nothing but smoldering ruins, where once stood splendid cities." Louverture took risks others may have not, but in the end it is clear that he did what was best for his country.
To have the power to free the slaves and command the military, Toussaint Louverture had to be the ruler of Saint Domingue. As leader he made decisions that created unhappy people, but he believed that they were necessary for the good of the country. An example of this is that he forced the former slaves to continue to work on the plantations they had worked at as slaves. The commission that created Saint Domingues constitution of 1801 was headed by Toussaint Louverture. In the constitution, it promised that all men are free, and plantations should be run as 'families'. His goal in doing this was to motivate his people to be supportive of keeping their positions, explaining the family dynamic as an ideal situation. Four months later, Toussaint Louverture creates a proclamation that goes back on his word. He explains in the proclamation how strict that the plantations should be run, and the extreme consequences for leaving. An example of his extreme views are when he says "as soon as a child can walk, he should be employed on the plantain according to his strength in some useful work…" This is excessive and extreme, and resembles the enslaved Saint Dominuge rather than the new one. Toussaint Louverture was a very important leader, but some of his decisions may not have been the best for his people, and because of this, his leadership of his country isn't as important as his role as liberator of slaves and military commander.
Toussaint Louverture was an incredible man who should be remembered for his great achievements. Similar to Abraham Lincoln, he liberated the slaves of his country of Saint Dominigue, chaing 500,000 peoples lives for the better. He also commanded a military that held its own against Napoleon, who is believed to be the strongest military genius of all time. Lastly, he was the leader of Saint Domininigue, and although he was forced to make decisions that would not make his people happy, his toughness allowed his leadership skills to shine through. The country of Haiti, formally know as Saint Domingue would be nothing and would have achieved nothing with the fearless Toussaint Louverture.
Friday, November 21, 2014
Monday, November 10, 2014
Revolutions of 1830 and 1848: How successful were they?
For this lesson, the class was split into groups, and each group was given a revolution that for the most part occurred in 1830 or 1848. After doing the proper research for their revolution, each group made a survey monkey, a list of about 10 questions about their revolution for the others in the class to take so that they could learn about it. The essential question for this lesson was "Were the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded?" To help us answer this, we all made scale to measure how much of a failure/success a revolution was. With this, it was easier for us to see where each revolution fell on the scale. From the scale, we only concluded that one of the revolutions was a complete revolution. All other revolutions were either a partial failure or even more of a success.
My groups revolution was the Deccemberist revolution of 1825. This revolution took place in 1825, and it was against the new Tsar, Tsar Nicholas. After the Tsar Alexanders death, most people assumed that Constantine, the older brother of Alexander I, would take the throne. Constantine did not have any interest in taking the crown, to the peoples dismay. Before Alexander died, the people planned to assassinated him, already unhappy with the government. When he died the hoped that Constantine would take the throne, because his ideals were the same as the people, an he would have run a government that the people would have wanted. Instead, Tsar Nicholas took the throne, someone who felt very strongly about the military, and did not want a democracy or to the people in lower social classes to have any say in the government, creating another horrible government situation for the people. The people wanted to overthrow Tsar Nicholas, put Constantine in the thrown, receive a constitution and stop the serfdom and poverty that was widely occurring in the nation. The revolt happened when the people revolting crowded around guards, and when told to halt by Nicholas they said that they were for Constantine. Hesitantly, Nicholas saw no other choice but to fire on his own people to stop the revolt from continuing. This was the end of the revolution, and since the people received nothing they wanted and were fired on by their leader, this would be considered a complete failure.
The next revolution that happened was the French revolution of 1830. After Louis XVIII died, his brother, Charles X took over the throne. He believed and absolutism, the thing that Louis XVIII was trying so hard to avoid. When he took the throne in 1824, he took away a lot of the peoples rights like limiting the right to vote and restricting the press. The liberals and radicals were not pleased by this, and used violence to get their message across, resulting in Charles X fleeing to England. After this, Louis Philippe became the citizen king, extending suffrage, which is something the french wanted, but only to the upper class, and because of this the bourgeoisie prospered, but the other people of France did not. This revolution would be, in my opinion, considered in the middle of the spectrum because the people did get some of the things the wanted, but other things, like suffrage, were only given to the upper class. France had another revolution again in 1848, just 18 years after the previous. In this revolution the people were upset that Louis Phillipe did not give them enough rights, so they took to the streets in protest. The government set up national workshops so the people of France had more opportunities for jobs, but in June these workshops were shut down being viewed as a waste of money. After the workshop closed a new constitution was created. The constitution gave voting right to all adult man, and created a one house legislature and a president. Louis Napoleon won this election, but soon he took over the title of emperor ending the republic, but still had a lot of support from the people. In my opinion, I view this revolution more as a success than as a failure because the people got things that they wanted, like being able to vote, and having a better economy, even if it was not all that they wanted. Another revolution was the Revolution of Hungarian Independence 1848. In this revolution, the Austrian empire was ruled by Metternich when a revolt broke out, and when the people supported it Metternich fled. Other places in the empire began wanting freedom as well, and wanted an end to serfdom and a constitution. The government ended up agreeing with these reforms, but unfortunately Austrian troops regained control of Vienna and Prague, and rebels were put in prison executed or exiled. This revolution is closer to a failure than a success, but the people did receive what they were fighting for, if only for a short amount of time. I believe that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were altogether more of a success than a failure. Even though none of the revolutions ended up getting everything they were fighting for, in most cases they received some things, and their countries in the future would possibly learn from what the people wanted in the past, so even if not at that time, someday the people fighting for revolutions may eventually receive it.
My groups revolution was the Deccemberist revolution of 1825. This revolution took place in 1825, and it was against the new Tsar, Tsar Nicholas. After the Tsar Alexanders death, most people assumed that Constantine, the older brother of Alexander I, would take the throne. Constantine did not have any interest in taking the crown, to the peoples dismay. Before Alexander died, the people planned to assassinated him, already unhappy with the government. When he died the hoped that Constantine would take the throne, because his ideals were the same as the people, an he would have run a government that the people would have wanted. Instead, Tsar Nicholas took the throne, someone who felt very strongly about the military, and did not want a democracy or to the people in lower social classes to have any say in the government, creating another horrible government situation for the people. The people wanted to overthrow Tsar Nicholas, put Constantine in the thrown, receive a constitution and stop the serfdom and poverty that was widely occurring in the nation. The revolt happened when the people revolting crowded around guards, and when told to halt by Nicholas they said that they were for Constantine. Hesitantly, Nicholas saw no other choice but to fire on his own people to stop the revolt from continuing. This was the end of the revolution, and since the people received nothing they wanted and were fired on by their leader, this would be considered a complete failure.
The next revolution that happened was the French revolution of 1830. After Louis XVIII died, his brother, Charles X took over the throne. He believed and absolutism, the thing that Louis XVIII was trying so hard to avoid. When he took the throne in 1824, he took away a lot of the peoples rights like limiting the right to vote and restricting the press. The liberals and radicals were not pleased by this, and used violence to get their message across, resulting in Charles X fleeing to England. After this, Louis Philippe became the citizen king, extending suffrage, which is something the french wanted, but only to the upper class, and because of this the bourgeoisie prospered, but the other people of France did not. This revolution would be, in my opinion, considered in the middle of the spectrum because the people did get some of the things the wanted, but other things, like suffrage, were only given to the upper class. France had another revolution again in 1848, just 18 years after the previous. In this revolution the people were upset that Louis Phillipe did not give them enough rights, so they took to the streets in protest. The government set up national workshops so the people of France had more opportunities for jobs, but in June these workshops were shut down being viewed as a waste of money. After the workshop closed a new constitution was created. The constitution gave voting right to all adult man, and created a one house legislature and a president. Louis Napoleon won this election, but soon he took over the title of emperor ending the republic, but still had a lot of support from the people. In my opinion, I view this revolution more as a success than as a failure because the people got things that they wanted, like being able to vote, and having a better economy, even if it was not all that they wanted. Another revolution was the Revolution of Hungarian Independence 1848. In this revolution, the Austrian empire was ruled by Metternich when a revolt broke out, and when the people supported it Metternich fled. Other places in the empire began wanting freedom as well, and wanted an end to serfdom and a constitution. The government ended up agreeing with these reforms, but unfortunately Austrian troops regained control of Vienna and Prague, and rebels were put in prison executed or exiled. This revolution is closer to a failure than a success, but the people did receive what they were fighting for, if only for a short amount of time. I believe that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were altogether more of a success than a failure. Even though none of the revolutions ended up getting everything they were fighting for, in most cases they received some things, and their countries in the future would possibly learn from what the people wanted in the past, so even if not at that time, someday the people fighting for revolutions may eventually receive it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)