#Haiti Revolution

[alpaca-clouds]

The Haitian Revolution

Yeah, okay. I guess to properly do the history thing, I also have to talk about the Haitian Revolution, don't I? Given that it is so important for the backstory of both Annette and Edouard.

Why didn't I do that so far? Because the Haitian Revolution is super hard to talk about because of the sources. A bit issue is that for a good part of it we only have French sources, that are not always the most... neutral. Because a lot of the rebelling slaves had never learned to write. As such, we actually do not know a lot about the side of the rebels until some Free Blacks started to take their side and lead the rebellion.

But I know a bit.

So, let me explain what I know.

Haiti (St. Domingue specifically, the French side of the island) was build exclusively on slave work. There were plantation there for indigo, sugar and coffee for the most part. And those plantation were very important for the French economy. And of course it was slaves working those plantations.

On the island there was a three class system (though if we are honest, it was a four class system).

Whites, who were free people and citizens of France. (Though in truth there was a difference between the plantation owning whites and those whites, who were not of the owning class.)

Free Black people. What differed in Haiti from the US for example is that it happened quite often that children of rape (white owners on Black slaves) would be freed and even adopted as children. While not considered citizens, they could own things, including their own plantations. (Yes, there were quite a few of these that owned slaves.)

Slaves, who outnumbered all other people on the island somewhere between seven to one and ten to one.

Now, most slaves did not survive the first three years after getting to the island. Many died in fact in their first year, because the working conditions were so harsh, they often did not receive food, were severely punished (through it receiving infections and such), and of course there was just the general issue of sicknesses.

There were people rebelling a long while and from what we know (again, there is so little in terms of sources) there were some escaped slaves living in the mountains and at times using guirella tactics. But there was not quite the move for a widespread rebellion starting...

That was until the French Revolution started. Once more the gentle reminder: The French Revolution took a long while to brew and originally was not a violent revolution, it only became violent in response to the violent oppression of it. Now, the people on St. Domingue were instructed not to talk about the Revolution, because some folks rightly assumed that it might give people ideas. Especially as among the Revolutionaries there was a big discussion about the abolition of slavery.

But in the end... Well, it did not work out and the freed slaves banded together for a proper uprising in 1791.

It is this uprising that we see in Nocturne. I have seen some people being very shocked in the human on human violence we see there, because folks are really whimpy when it comes to that. So, a little explanation: Originally (in the 1791) uprising the slave uprising was once again not very violent. Almost everyone who got killed was connected to immense abuses of slaves. The rebels tried to spare everyone who treated their slaves kindly. As such within that first uprising only 400 whites got killed, compared to 4000 Black people, as the French were much better armed.

Still, the rebels managed to capture part of the island.

It should be noted: This is probably around the time when Annette and Edouard left. They captured some plantation, and freed quite a few more slaves.

There would follow quite a bit of back and forth then. Especially between Haiti and the French Republic. And I would not be surprised if we were to see that in the coming season(s).

Mostly, because the Revolitionaries went back and forth between whether Free Black people could be citizens who got to vote or not. Making the Free Blacks, who originally were against the revolution, more and more take the side of the rebels.

And yes, it would get more and more violent. Because France and then later Britain, too (who did not agree with France on many things - but on saving slavery) threw thousands upon thousand of soldiers in fighting down the revolution with extreme violence, leading the Haitian Revolutionaries to answer this violence with their own violence.

But for the love of God, do not go there and be like: "Ugh, violence. Violence bad." Like, fuck that. I said that about Isaac before as well: Slaves freeing themselves have the right to use whatever violence necessary for that.

[dasjungeding]

Vue de l’incendie de la ville du Cap Français, 21 juin 1793.

[greencarnation]

When will the revolution come?

I think it's here. A revolution isn't when everyone collectively wakes up one day and goes "time to destroy the government", a revolution is just a series of events grouped together that we will call a revolution later. They take time. French revolution? 10 years. American revolution? 7 years. We're already underway - maybe we have been since as early as the BLM protests in 2020. What we need to do now is just do our part and build momentum

[theorahsart]

In case yourself or anyone is interested, I found a graphic novel about this topic in my local bookshop a couple weeks ago:

Apparently adapted from a play by CLR James, a Trinidadian historian and activist, who also wrote 'The Black Jacobins'.

I'm very excited to read this! But as you can tell from the wrapping, Im in the process of moving house lol But Ill share my thoughts once Im done moving :3 The Black Jacobins is on my list too!

the haitian revolution and toussaint in general doesn’t get enough love and attention and as a collective i think frevblr should be more focused on it. and napoleon fans. i dont like u.

[nesiacha]

Mini Portraits of Three Revolutionary Women from Overseas Territories

French womens revolutionaries from mainland France are largely forgotten in France. But those from the Overseas Territories and Haiti are even more overlooked.

Victoria Montou aka Aunt Toya (presumed portrait)

(? – 1805)

A former slave working for the colonist Henri Duclos, she would be considered a second mother by Jean-Jacques Dessalines, the future Lieutenant General under Toussaint Louverture, who briefly allied with General Leclerc as a strategic move before fighting against him again and becoming Emperor of Haiti. It is believed that she taught Dessalines about African culture and some combat skills while they were enslaved. Duclos saw their association as dangerous and decided to get rid of them by selling them to different slave owners, ensuring their separation.

On her new estate, where she was exploited again , Dr. Jean-Baptiste Mirambeau, who would later become the Emperor’s physician, noted, "Her commands are identical to those of a general." This observation would prove accurate as events unfolded. Toya led a group of slaves she was affiliated with, and together they took up arms, fighting against a regiment. According to Mirambeau, "This small group of rebels, under Toya's command, was quickly surrounded and captured by the regiment. During the struggle, Toya fled, pursued by two soldiers; a hand-to-hand combat ensued, and Toya severely wounded one of them. The other, with the help of additional soldiers who arrived in time, captured Toya."

Upon the proclamation of independence in January 1804 and Dessalines’ coronation as Emperor, he made Victoria Montou an imperial duchess. However, she fell gravely ill in 1805. Jean-Jacques Dessalines tried to heal her, saying, "This woman is my aunt; treat her as you would have treated me. She endured, alongside me, all the hardships and emotions while we were condemned to work the fields together." She died on June 12, 1805. She was given a grand funeral; her funeral procession was carried by eight brigadiers of the imperial guard and led by Empress Marie-Claire Bonheur.

Marthe Rose-Toto (1762? – December 2, 1802)

Marthe Rose-Toto was born around 1762 on the island of Saint Lucia, which became free following the abolition of slavery in Guadeloupe in 1794. According to some sources, she became a close companion of Louis Delgrès, an officer and fervent republican revolutionary, so much so that he was called a "Sans Culotte" by Jean-Baptiste Raymond de Lacrosse ( I've already discussed Louis Delgrès here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/751677840407330816/on-this-day-die-louis-delgres-freedom-fighter?source=share) . However, in 1802, Bonaparte sought to reinstate slavery and sent General Richepance. Louis Delgrès and many others took up arms. It is noteworthy that women were as present as men in this struggle to maintain their freedom and dignity. When all was lost, Louis Delgrès and 300 volunteers chose to commit suicide by explosives, shouting the revolutionary cry "Live free or die," after ensuring the evacuation of the estate for those who were not willing. The repression was brutal.

According to historian Auguste Lacour, during the evacuation, Marthe Rose-Toto broke her leg and was brought to the tribunal on a stretcher. She was accused of inciting Louis Delgrès' resistance and inciting the murder of white prisoners. It should be noted that these accusations were generally false, intended to legitimize death sentences. She was hanged, and according to Lacour, her last words were, "Men, after killing their king, left their country to come to ours to bring trouble and confusion: may God judge them!" In any case, Marthe Rose-Toto is considered one of the most important women in the fight against the reinstatement of slavery, alongside Rosalie, also known as Solitude. Their struggles and sacrifices should not be forgotten, and they were not in vain, as slavery was once again abolished in 1848.

Flore Bois Gaillard

Flore Bois Gaillard was a former slave and also a leader. She was reportedly one of the leaders of the "Brigands" revolt on the island of Saint Lucia during the French Revolution. Little is known about her as a former slave, only that she lived in the colony of Saint Lucia. Local historian Thomas Ferguson says of Flore Bois Gaillard, "A woman named Flore Bois Gaillard—a name that evokes intrepidity—was among the main leaders of the revolutionary party," and that during the French Revolution, she was "a central figure in this turbulent group that would be defeated by the military strategies of Colonel Drummond in 1797."

The group that included Flore Bois Gaillard consisted of former slaves, French revolutionaries, soldiers, and English deserters. They were determined to fight against the English regiments, notably through guerrilla strategies. This group won a notable battle, the Battle of Rabot in 1795, with the help of Governor Victor Hugues and, according to some, also with the help of Louis Delgrès and Pelage. However, this group was ultimately defeated by the British, who retook the island in 1797. At this point, Flore Bois Gaillard’s trace is lost. Writer Édouard Glissant imagines in his book that she was executed by the British after the island was retaken in 1797. Nevertheless, she remains a symbol in this struggle and a national heroine. The example of Flore Bois Gaillard is also interesting because it clearly shows us once again that the French Revolution was also taking place in the overseas departments and that slaves or former slaves played a crucial role there in order to make her revolution triumph and were in all the battles.

[haitianhistory]

On Haiti's 220th anniversary

Two hundred and twenty years ago, former slaves and free people of color accomplished the seemingly impossible: defeating one of the most formidable European armies of the day and establishing a new state where bondage, as it existed before 1791, would be forever abolished.

For those who have followed this blog since 2013, you know that I (admin A) have rarely allowed myself any sentimentality when discussing Haitian history. I have tried to present a nuanced portrait of Haiti’s past by addressing the weight of the many isms that have plagued its history (colonialism, racism, neoliberalism…) and by taking a critical look at the role of Haitian leaders throughout all these episodes.

Two hundred and twenty years after the unthinkable, Haiti finds itself without a president, grappling with what seems to be a permanent problem of armed gangs, little security, renewed multifaceted tensions with its Dominican neighbour, and on the brink of a new UN occupation through a Kenyan mission. The young woman who started this blog a decade ago would have said that there are little reasons for us as Haitians to celebrate—not because of a difficulty appreciating the great shoulders on which we stand, but because, at twenty-two years old, I didn’t believe in what I felt was useless romanticism binding us to a distorted past while also blinding us to the reality of the disastrous present.

Today, it’s not so much that I find much to rejoice in given the current state of affairs. It’s that I realize, what is the point of all this if there is no hope? Why this blog, why study the history of Haiti at all, why care about the country? For those of us with family there, why not temporarily send money in the hope of helping them relocate here, there, and anywhere except Haiti? Why not congratulate the complete erosion of Haitian sovereignty, as post-1986 Haiti, and especially Haiti of the last two decades, has shown so vividly the complete utter failure of its foreign-backed governing class?

I don’t know what hope is supposed to look like in this situation. Hope for what? Hope for a change under what conditions, under whose authority? On what would this hope be grounded? Perhaps, despite the best efforts of my twenty-two-year-old self, I am becoming as naive and sentimental as the people I silently criticized then...

Perhaps, however, I recognize that Haiti does matter. Even the most cynical among us would admit that there is something profoundly radical in breaking the bonds of slavery, in affirming that people of African descent could not be stripped of their humanity, that there is something poetic in saying “no” in the face of impressive odds. Newly independent Haiti did not live up to some of the promises of its complicated Revolution. The 1825 French imposition of an indemnity severely affected freshly formed Haiti (beyond the 19th century), but it does not excuse the incompetence of Haitian governments, then and now. Haiti could, may have, and I certainly hope, will change, will remember what 1804 ought to have meant.

Perhaps, especially for the people who currently live in Haiti, particularly the women of all ages who face the constant threats of sexual violence, Haiti has a responsibility to itself, to its unprecedented idealism, to all of us.

Given all these reasons, I find it necessary to maintain a guarded optimism, acknowledging that ideas hold significance and possess the potential to materialize into reality.

[nickysfacts]

Just remember ladies that Erzulie Dantor is always watching over us!

🇭🇹🧕🏾🗡

[reasoningdaily]

apparently his proclamation became fact - cause ariel henry has ran for the safety of Puerto Rico's beaches. america when will you learn to stop interfering in other sovereign countries affairs

Viva HAITI - SAC PASSE'

Gang leader Jimmy Barbeque threatens more violence if Haiti’s prime minister doesn’t resign

[daughterofdessalines]

Haiti was intended to be a Colonial state… but the people of Haiti defeated the British, French & Spanish & became the first free Black nation in the Western Hemisphere. We defeated colonialism… & the colonizers have been attacking us ever since.

[violottie]

oh you think im kidding when i say we should bring back the guillotine for the tyrannical colonisers and multi millionaires and billionaires in power who are literally controlling the world? you think im just saying that to be edgy and dramatic on the internet?

im deadass

how the fuck else are we to get rid of them.

im so fucking serious. guillotine. drawn and quartered. publically. immediately. we need active revolution. just putting a watermelon in your bio isnt cutting it.

[roehenstart]

Toussaint L'Ouverture by George De Baptiste.

[dasjungeding]

Illustration from An Historical Account of the Black Empire of Hayti, by Marcus Rainford, 1805.

“Revenge taken by the black army for the cruelties practiced on them by the French”.

[fuckyeahmarxismleninism]

On Sep. 17, about 60 Haitians and their supporters, as well as New York City Councilwomen Mercedes Narcisse and Farah Louis, rallied in front of St. Jerome Catholic Church at the corner of Nostrand and Newkirk Avenues in Brooklyn, NY. Organized by Children for Change International, the rally was titled “Immigrants United Against Hate.”

The largest mobilization is planned for Sep. 18 at the Nassau Coliseum at 1255 Hempstead Turnpike in Uniondale, NY on Long Island, where Trump will be holding a campaign rally. The Haitians, other immigrants, and their supporters will hold a  counter-demonstration that will gather at 3 p.m. at 1110 Hempstead Turnpike in Uniondale, at the corner of Uniondale Avenue.

Meanwhile, in Haiti, politicians and the corrupt bourgeoisie are doing everything to maintain their class privileges and keep the popular masses in the most abject misery. This is our best opportunity to organize ourselves to be better able to respond to these false allegations which, once again, besmirch our dignity and belittle us like old clothes worn out by misery. They try to make us forget our ancestors’ glorious anti-colonialist and anti-slavery struggles.

[newhistorybooks]

"Daut brings alive Haiti's fascinating intellectual history and shows brilliantly how Haitian thinkers shaped the culture and politics of their own country even as they transformed broader understandings of race, revolution, and the writing of history. This powerful and necessary book challenges us to think differently about the global history of thought."

[nesiacha]

Frustration when I watched a television show about the Overseas Departments and Haiti during the period of the re-establishment of slavery and in general.

The siege of the Crête at Pierrot in 1802, by A. Raffet, engraving Hébert, 1839

Warning: There are many atrocities I will talk about when we dive into the details of the Haitian Revolution and torture in the reedit in the end . So, don’t read if you’re not up for it.

Completely by chance, I caught the second half of the show "Toussaint Louverture" (though I skipped some parts, I admit) presented by Stéphane in his show "Secrets d’Histoire," which I would qualify as mediocre. However, I was surprised to see that this show, which has always been lenient towards Bonaparte and Louis XVI, finally addresses the horrible re-establishment of slavery and recalls that the second and final abolition of slavery in 1848 was unsatisfactory because financial compensation was given to the colonists, but nothing to the former slaves. The one in 1794 seemed better. The participants of the show indeed say that it was a grave mistake to re-establish slavery, both morally and strategically regarding Haiti. I don't feel they explained how disastrous the consequences were, like how these laws removed brilliant officers from the military, such as Louis Delgrès (although mentioned in the show) or Alexandre Dumas (not to mention many former slaves who served in the military or fought like the group to which belonged Flore Blois Gaillard, who allied with the French revolutionaries against the British forces). This was a severe blow to the army, especially with the laws we could call racial against Black people (though I hesitate to use this term because I'm not sure if the word racist was defined as we understand it today). It was a great blunder—if Bonaparte hadn't had the (stupid) idea to re-establish slavery, perhaps the Overseas Departments wouldn't have fallen under British influence (as for Haiti, I think it would have become independent even without the re-establishment of slavery, and France and Haiti could have been solid allies, but it would have been much less violent with fewer French and Haitian losses). All these wars cost enormous amounts of money, and I believe he wouldn’t have sold Louisiana (frankly, he surely had good reasons, but can you imagine the French revolutionaries, especially those from 1792-1794, even in their worst moments, trying to sell a territory, at least the majority of the Convention? I can't). Moreover, there is no mention of the horrible deportations endured by Guadeloupeans and Haitians to Corsica, whether men, women, or children, under atrocious conditions. The most famous victim is the deputy Jean Louis Annecy (although very forgotten), who died on the island of Elba in 1807.

As usual, revolutionary women are forgotten. There is only a mention of Rosalie, alias Solitude, but there were many who participated in the fight, including Sanité Belair, who was executed by firing squad with her husband, Marie Claire Bonheur, the future Empress of Haiti, Victoria Montou, Dédée Bazile, Cécile Fatiman, Marthe Rose Toto from French Guiana, etc. The list is very long.

Finally, I don't like this whitewashing of Charles Leclerc (they do say that Rochambeau was terrible, at least, but since Leclerc was Bonaparte’s brother-in-law, he surely received some favorable treatment in this show). Here is an excerpt from the beginning of his horrors: "The majority of the deportees were concentrated in Corsica and the island of Elba, where they were used as labor for road construction and fortification restoration starting with the former Black soldiers" (text excerpt from "La guerre des Couleurs" of Pierre Branda and Thierry Lentz) . There was authorization to condemn Black people based on mere suspicion. Moreover, here is a letter Leclerc sent to his brother-in-law Napoleon Bonaparte: "Here is my opinion on this country. We must destroy all the Black people in the mountains, men and women, keep only the children under 12 years old, destroy half of those in the plains, and not leave a single colored man who has worn an epaulette in the colony." To think that I found the orders from the Convention in 1793-1794 frightening because they were ambiguous... Well, another reason why I find Bonaparte much more terrifying than them (already, the torture practiced by the police under Fouché in 1801 was appalling when he allowed it, the deportation without trial of many Jacobins, some of whom died, etc.), it reinforced my belief that he was much worse than the Committee of Public Safety in 1794, who nevertheless committed unforgivable acts in wartime under the infernal situation of internal-external civil war. Leclerc started the drownings in October 1802: it didn't matter whether the victims were civilians or soldiers; they were put on boats that were sunk. This strongly recalls the horrors committed by Carrier. According to Marlene L. Daut, the horrors were such that there were many desertions among French soldiers, which must not have been an easy situation for them because they could be shot for desertion and, even if they survived, forced to avoid returning home to avoid trouble with Napoleonic justice.

Leclerc (and by extension, Bonaparte) fell into the trap that some fighters, victims of an invasion or imminent invasion, have used throughout history, which seems quite old: pretending to ally with their adversaries to buy time, even if it means sacrificing their own to better fight the enemy again (and they certainly don't reach the only ones using this technique). This is what happened with Dessalines: the show doesn’t explain the armed resistance led by the Bélair couple against Leclerc, where they temporarily won victories. However, some believe this uprising might have been premature, although the insurgents weakened Leclerc with certain victories, and consequently, Dessalines allowed Charles and Sanité Bélair to be sacrificed. To be fair, the show I mentioned briefly explains that Henry Christophe and Dessalines did not betray Toussaint; they just wanted to buy time, but there is no mention of the Bélair couple. According to historians Pierre Branda and Thierry Lentz, Dessalines killed two birds with one stone by eliminating a potential rival in the person of Charles Bélair and to lull Leclerc's distrust to better attack when the time comes. In any case, by buying time, they were able to achieve better victories against Leclerc (who surely thought that by compromising Dessalines in the eyes of Black people, the insurgents would no longer dare to fight with him, but he was wrong) and later Rochambeau. Rochambeau continued by increasing atrocities, notably by releasing dogs on Black people and continuing to practice torture. There are allegations that Rochambeau locked Black people in holds and activated sulfur so they would die of asphyxiation. Thierry Lentz and Pierre Branda think it is not impossible that this happened. Bernard Gainot cites Jules Chanlatte from his work "Histoire de la catastrophe de Saint-Domingue" and published by a former sailor, Jean-Baptiste Bouvet de Cissé, in 1824: "Instead of valve boats, another type was invented, where victims of both sexes, piled on top of each other, expired suffocated by sulfur fumes." Whatever the case, the insurgents militarily defeated Rochambeau and the French troops, and their final victory was the Battle of Vertières in November 1803. Following this, Haiti's independence was proclaimed.

Where I totally disapprove is when, in order to try to limit the horrors that the Blacks people have suffered, they explain their reprisals, especially with the horrible massacre of the Whites people in 1804. I have already said in a post that massacre it is absolutely condemnable and atrocious . But imagine the horror of a little less than half of the Haitian population massacred in atrocious suffering, some betrayed by France while they had fought for them, others deported in atrocious conditions and some will never see their home again. I think that if their adversaries who oppressed them and those who applauded them had suffered a quarter of an eighth of the horrors that the Haitians suffered, the carnage would have been even more terrible. I do not want to exonerate the Haitians who took part in the massacre of 1804 from the responsibility but if Bonaparte had not approved such cruel orders (and he is the number 1 person responsible for this carnage), Whites people would not have been killed at least not in large numbers. The historian Thomas Madiou, said "Is it surprising that blacks and men of color used reprisals against whites?" And in any case nothing excuses the attitude of Bonaparte, Rochambeau or Leclerc. In my eyes they behaved like Turreau and Carrier. If we try to exonerate Bonaparte and his clique responsible for these massacres by highlighting the atrocities on the other side, it is a call to also exonerate horrible people like Carrier and Turreau by saying that the Vendéens committed massacre too.

In addition, the show ignored the many Haitians who protected white people from this massacre (Including Marie Claire Bonheur, wife of Dessalines, who nevertheless ordered the massacre I mentioned here: https://www.tumblr.com/nesiacha/758334606594523136/166-years-ago-empress-marie-claire-bonheur-of?source=share) and didn't said that the Polish legionnaires who were sent by Bonaparte to repress them were touched by the horrors that the Blacks suffered and many of them deserted to fight alongside the former slaves (as a form of recognition, the survivors were given Haitian nationality) were spared just like the Germans who had not participated in the slave trade ( but on the second point maybe I am wrong). For my part Rochambeau, Leclerc, Carrier and Turreau are to be put in the same bag concerning their atrocities when they were sent on a mission. Too bad Turreau and Rochambeau did not pay for their atrocities (some say that the fact that Leclerc died of yellow fever is enough karma and Carrier was guillotined and I do not pity him at all)

Finally, this isn't in the show, but I don't like when people say that Bonaparte was "a man of his time" to excuse his actions regarding slavery. No, he reinstated it, which is even worse. Sonthonax, Abbé Grégoire, Jean-Paul Marat, Pierre Gaspard Chaumette, Olympe de Gouges, and many others were also from the same era as Bonaparte and were opposed to slavery. The re-establishment of slavery shocked many French people, and a white man named Monnereau, under the orders of Delgrès, was hanged in Guadeloupe because he rose up against the re-establishment of slavery and drafted Louis Delgrès' last manifesto. While Bonaparte was reinstating slavery, a white man gave his life for the fight against it (and there must have been many examples like Monnereau). So, this argument to whitewash Napoleon doesn't hold up.

P.S.: I first found the information about asphyxiation from Claude Ribbe. However, even as a convinced, even a person like me petty, anti-Napoleon person ( and a bad faith person I admit it), I find him not very credible. Comparing Napoleon to Hitler is one of the most absurd things I ever heard. That's why I'm more cautious about this statement.

My sources for this post are: Bernard Gainot Pierre Branda, Thierry Lentz, "La guerre des couleurs"

[padawan-historian]

Let it be magic ✨️