Toussaint L'Ouverture, was the leader of the Haitian Revolution. He constantly changed sides, but in the end, he was the driving force behind Haiti's revolution. His intense negotiation skills and commitment were his key features during the Haitian Revolution. The question is: Was there no other choice than for Toussaint to lead the rebel slaves in battle? or Was the Haitian Revolution inevitable?

Haiti was a rich and prosperous country. It was once a precious jewel to the French economy with its endless profits. The only problem was how this profit was made. For years Haiti, or Saint-Domingue as it was previously known as, generated its economy off of slave labor. Slaves worked the sugar plantations and cultivated the coffee farms.

Haiti continued on like this, but with a sharp societal divide between the while elite, the free mixed race, and the slaves. For years the whites had enjoyed all the rights entitled to a citizen, but the mixed race, although free remained subordinate. The initial spark of fighting was between these two classes the white and the mixed race. The mixed race community longed for equality with their white counterparts and thus entreatied to France for such equality. In the wake of the French Revolution an as Enlightenment ideas of equality, liberty, and fraternity spread, these demands did not seem impossible. However, France did not know what was to ensue with all this talk of civil and political equality.

The slaves who were constantly mistreated also yearned for the same liberties as preached by the French radicals. Despite knowing what freedom would be like, the slaves were sure that they wanted it. This mentality began the Haitian Revolution and set into motion swift rebellion and opposition from the slaves. The slaves now attacked their masters and the tables had been turned. They knew that they wanted freedom and knew that the same violence that was used on them was to be used on their enemies.

The Haitian Revolution shook up the French government and launched a turbulent relationship between Haiti and the French government. There was a long battle over the institution of slavery and only pure chaos was the result. This leads me to say that the revolution was inevitable simply because of its cause. The hypocrisy in which France was involved in would not have warranted any other outcome. This was worsened by the French government's hesitation to grant them this equality, which we saw with the mixed race population's petition for equality and eventually with the slaves petition for freedom. This left the slaves with no other option than to fight. The French radical government encouraged ideals of liberty, fraternity, and equality. With these ideals being spread throughout the French political system and society, everyone wanted such, even the slaves of its colonies. The slaves were given no choice but to fight France. Until the slaves received what they thought belonged to all of France and its colonies, they would have never stopped. It just simply became a matter of when the slave revolt would happen. To summarize it all, the Haitian Revolution was in deed inevitable. The slaves had to rebel to get what they demanded of France: liberty and inequality. It was only a matter of time before the slaves expected what almost all of France was guaranteed and revolution was the only way to achieve it.

The Mountains: The Most Radical of the Radicals

The Mountain were a branch of the Jacobins and the enemy of the Girondists, the more conservative group. The Mountain were characterized by their dramatic push towards revolution and the extents they were willing to go to get it. The Jacobins are the ones who voted that the king (Louis XVI) be executed, which is one of the primary reasons for the Girondist/ Mountain divide.

Above everything, the Mountain loathed the Girondists. They saw them as holding back revolution and as nothing but enemies. The hatred between Mountain and Girondists lead to the Mountain joining forces with the Sans-Culottes, a French radical group made of France's peasantry. The Mountain preferred the idea of working with commoners than the thought of helping the Girondists who did not agree with the Sans-Culottes either. The fact that their nemesis, the Girondists did not fathom the actions of the Sans-Culottes was cause enough for them to join forces with them.

The controversy does not begin with the fact that they are helping the Sans-Culottes only to get back at the Girondists, but instead it is with the abuse of the Mountains power over the Sans-Culottes begin. The Mountain use their undignified power over the Sans-Culottes by seeking vengeance upon the Girondists. The Mountain are responsible for sending many Girondists to jail. They used the peasants as a mob to rise up against any and almost all Girondists. Though they did not care about their alliance with the Sans-Culottes, they misused their power over the peasants who made up the Sans-Culottes.

This is where my question comes into play. Do you agree with me? did the Mountain misuse their alliance with the Sans-Culottes? or Did they make a smart political decision that ended up helping both them and Sans-Culottes. Before responding, consider these points. The Mountain only entered this alliance to get back at the Girondists and once they did form an alliance they used the Sans-Culottes for their own personal interests. I reaffirm my position that the Mountain misused their alliance and their selfishness helped no one but themselves.

FOR THE SONG OF THE GIRONDISTS CLICK HERE!!!

Hamilton's Permanent National Debt, A Good Idea?

Alexander Hamilton was a Federalist. He was one of the most aristocratic leaders of his time. Hamilton envisioned a complex America. An America with commercialism and a sense of urbanity. He hoped for an America that would become economically prosperous. With president, George Washington of the belief that a president should not be involved in political disputes, Alexander Hamilton became the dominant figure in Washington's administration.

At a time when America was slowly, but surely paying off its debt from the Revolution, Hamilton being the economical innovator that he was, saw an opportunity to capitalize on this. Hamilton proposed that the existing public debts be funded and he asked that the Certificates of Indebtedness that the old congress issued be withdrawn and replaced by Interest-bearing Bonds. He also asked that the states' war debts be taken over so that bondholders could look to the central government for payment. Hamilton's plan was to create a Permanent National Debt where new bonds were issued as old ones were being paid. His intention was to get the wealthy, who the government were more reliant on, to ave a reason to support the government. The reason being personal gain through the successes of the national government.


Before I state my opinion, I ask two questions. The first being, What do you feel about Hamilton's plan for a continuous national debt? Would it make America more financially prosperous or lure America into more loans it can not afford to pay off? The second is, If you were alive in that era and were also a dominant figure in Washington's administration, would you focus your attentions on the wealthy, like Hamilton did, or on the working class?

Alexander Hamilton's idea for a continuous national debt, although risky, was absolutely ingenious. Alexander understood that in government, the more influential people in government were those that had the means of funding it. There was only one problem which seemed to persist. With the Revolution debts being paid off, what other incentive did the wealthy have to invest in government? Hamilton saw this problem and knew that the result could take away a much needed source, something that could be described as sort of an "alliance" between the wealthy and the government. In his search for the answer to maintain the government's key supporters, the wealthy, he devised the system of Permanent National Debt, which is described above. This plan provided an incentive for the wealthy to maintain a vested interest in government. Hamilton's idea was not only unheard of at the time, but quite resourceful. He capitalized on what was previously a source of affliction after the war, the debts, and turned it into a method of gaining even more support, support from the highly elite in society. The idea of a Permanent Debt may seem risky, but it not only did it retain aristocratic support, but it managed to better society. Soon after the idea of Permanent National Debt, a national bank was created which provided loans and currency to businesses, gave the government a safe place to deposit federal funds, facilitated the collection of axes, and and provided a stable center to the nation's weak banking system.

Also, despite it going against everything that the American republican system was based on, I believe that Hamilton was right to focus most of his attention on the wealthy aristocrats. In this era, not many were fortunate enough to be wealthy because of the enormous burden that the Revolution placed on America, with this in mind, most common people must have been angry and bitter about the financial strains and therefore unwilling and unable to support the government financially. The wealthy however, were fully capable of supporting the government financially and were also profitable to the government at the time. With all this in mind, it is the smarter choice to curry favor with those that prove most useful in a situation and just to avoid any misunderstanding, the fact that Hamilton wanted to provide an incentive for the wealthy to maintain their support does not imply that they were given preference, it simply means that America was taking all of its people into consideration and instead of imposing bigot taxes, the government used a less refutable approach.


Before You Comment, Click Here A Little Understanding of What Hamilton's National Debt Did

The Philosophes

The Enlightenmnet was a cultural movement and thus forth, societal ideology has never stopped changing. The Philisophes culminated the Enlightenment. Their willingness to question without fear the policies of the monarchy, domineering wealthy class, and the oppressive church. The Philosophes dared to go where so few thinkers dared to go. In times before, philosophers findings had always complied with the church. There was no doubting the church and so philosophers built their ideas of the doctrines of the church.

The Philosophes were characterized by their organization and dedication. They managed to mix with the elite of Europe and transform their thinking. Their philosophies soon dominated the pattern of the Enlightenment. For example at the point of the Enlightenment when people learned to look at morality in relative terms rather than absolute terms, it was the work of the Philosophes. Their travel accounts and observances of cultures outside of Europe revealed new cultures and beliefs.

The Philosophies challenged religion, in every sense. As I said before, this was a time when the bible and Christian doctrines dominated all thoughts, but that never stopped the Philosophes from opposing and doubting all the church said was true. After the death of Louis the XIV, this was even more so. With the church slowly losing strength, more Philosophes used this to their advantage and published highly critical books, not just of religion, but also books that encroached on government. One of the most famous examples of this was Montesquieu.

Montesquieu made a point of criticizing the monarchy. He glorified English institutions, in hopes of getting the French monarchy to follow in the same footsteps. In his book "The Spirit of Laws" Montesquieu challenged everything. He challenged the corruption and silent power that women gained as mistresses and courtiers. He made a point of showing that these women were getting more time with the king than those who mattered, like government officials. Montesquieu surely was not an advocate of equality. The thought of a servant being equal to his master was absurd because he feared what allowing the poor uneducated into government and law could result in, but one point he argued was that laws should protect all equally and this could only be done by the Separation of Powers.

The Separation of Powers was the idea of power controlling power. Montesquieu argued that powers should be divided unevenly so as to prevent tyranny. His proposition for the separation of powers was for the promotion of liberty. Montesquieu's idea of Separation of Powers was a foundation of many constitutions today like that of the US and England. He is just one example of how much impact the at the time radical Philosophes had on their day and even in ours.

Times, fortunately, have progressed from a time where it took a dignified philosopher publishing a new theory before anyone, especially those in authoritative positions would consider it. Fortunately for us, we are in better times where each one of us can be thought of as a Philosophe. In today's world, everyone, from the poorest and most most uneducated of people to the richest are allowed to question authority without consequence. It is through reading such that we truly appreciate how far we have advanced as a people, meaning a nation, and quite possibly world. We are utilizing our given right to doubt every time we ask a question. Could you see yourself coping in a world where you must be powerful to have an opinion? What are some times that we exercise our right to doubt freely for granted?