Haiti Without the French Revolution

(http://modmobilian.com/uploads/2010/02/haiti.jpg)

In my opinion, if the French Revolution of 1789 to 1799 had not occurred, the slaves from the French colony of Saint-Domingue would have still revolted; however, the rebellion would have come alive later than 1791. The most crucial aspect of the French Revolution was to recreate the meaning of a typical French citizen. The French had no idea who they really were because before the removal of the monarchy, everyone in France had been a subject of the king and queen, therefore taught what to believe. Under the First Republic of France, there was no specific order in life, and that new freedom gave the people of France a chance to invent the new French citizen. The revolutionary government, with help from the French citizens, decided on the ideals that they felt all French men and women should possess. They concluded that liberty, equality, and fraternity were the key essential aspects of the psyche of a French citizen. At this time, however, slavery had already been well established in the three French colonies of Saint-Domingue, Guadeloupe, and Martinique. The practice of slavery entails barely any rights, especially not the rights to liberty, equality, and fraternity. If there was no revolution after the removal of the French monarchy, this recreation of the meaning of a citizen would have still occurred; however, the new ideals would not have been known by such a vast group of people. During the revolution the people of France were incessantly worried about the stability of their country, therefore when they all came to a common consensus about their beliefs, they were ecstatic and surprised and wanted to spread the good news throughout all of France--including the colonies. Whether there was a revolution or not, if the "Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen" had been created and had reached the islands, there was bound to be hostility between the slaves and all other groups apart of the nation of France at the time. The French displayed their dual morality when they declared slavery illegal in France but outside of France, it was perfectly okay. The colony of Saint-Domingue, subsequently known as Haiti, was worth a very large sum of money due to its rich soil and ability to grow a surplus of crops. Also, Toussaint L'Overture and Jean-Jaques Dessalines, who are both referred to by many as military and political geniuses, were two of the leading men from Saint-Domingue. Although the colonies were enveloped in perpetual enslavement that would forever be a part of their minds, these two men were able to think beyond that. The intelligence that some of the African slaves possessed was what, ultimately, led to the successful Revolt in Haiti.

How the Failed Escape of King Louis XVI Led to His Demise

(http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/searchimages/187.jpg)

Whether it be in a good or bad way, a monarch always has the power and ability to alter the frame of mind of his or her people. At times, said power can be too much for a king or queen to handle. On the night of June 20, 1791 King Louis XVI, along with his queen Marie Antoinette and their two children, set out to escape from their palace in Versailles. By attempting to escape, Louis XVI ventured to strip himself of all responsibilities pertaining to the thrown, a measure that any principled king would not have even considered. The king and his family tried to lay low for a short period of time; however, this attempt was soon proven to be unsuccessful. For example, the king was recognized by a local post master in the city of Sainte-Menehould. Another person who identified the royal family contacted the National Guard. When the royal family was transferring toVarennes for the night, this voyage is often referred to as the "Flight to Varennes," the National Guard was there waiting to take the king and his family back to Paris. This attempted escape left Louis XVI distrusted by his people with very little hope of ever gaining power or their trust back. When the king and his family returned to Paris they were looked at with pure disgust. Troubles occurring on the inside of the royal family soon led to France's formal declaration of war on Austria. However, the king and queen continued to deceive the citizens of their country and they were soon after thrown in jail for tyranny during peacetime and treason, respectively. The attempted escape of King Louis XVI and his family brought the king to an even more dangerous position than the one he had been in before. Ultimately, his failed escape led to the well deserved death of King Louis XVI.

Antifederalists Against the Constitution

During the time the United States Constitution was ratified (1787), there were two dominant groups of American citizens: the Federalist party and the Antifederalist party. The Federalists and the Antifederalists could not have had more conflicting views. The Federalists were very pro Constitution, whereas the Antifederalists were not. The Federalists were opposed to the idea of having the rules of their country be very uncertain, as those in Great Britain were. There were many reasons that the Antifederalists did not support the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, some more significant than others. First, the Antifederalists were dissatisfied that the early version of the constitution did not have a Bill of Rights. The Federalists disagreed with the Antifederalists because they believed that with a Bill of Rights, the Americans would be very limited in their liberties. The Federalists believed that the Bill of Rights would grant citizens only the listed rights and deny citizens of many desired ones. The Federalists and Antifederalists finally made a compromise and added a Bill of Rights to the Constitution that displayed a basic set of guidelines protecting the most critical rights of citizens. The Antifederalists also objected to the Constitution because they thought it would weaken the power of the states and the individual liberties of the U.S. citizens. The Antifederalists believed that the Federal government should have equal or less power than the state governments. By leaving the fate of our country's common law in the hands of the Federal government, Antifederalists believed the Federal government would have kept gaining power until there is no power left with the states.

Salutary Neglect and the Boston Massacre

The Boston Massacre was a turning point in the lives of the citizens that inhabited the American colonies. Before the Boston Massacre there was already an extreme amount of tension between the colonies and Great Britain due, in the most part, to the Royal troops moving into Massachusetts in October 1768. The Massachusetts citizens had the right to be angry with Great Britain considering that the troops were there to enforce the colonists to obey the skewed Townshend Acts. From the time the Colonies were created it was a known fact that their relationship with the British was going to be strictly "don't ask, don't tell": the Colonies were able to get away with illegally trading and transporting items without being penalized by the Parliament. Britain displayed "salutary neglect" toward the colonists, and that is what led the colonists to doing what ever they wanted and more importantly so, that is what drove the colonists to develop the mindset that they no longer had to obey British law anymore. When Great Britain sent Royal troops into Massachusetts it not only made the colonists feel like children, it also made it extremely difficult for the colonists to illegally trade and transport items that were included in the Townshend Acts. Though the colonists had a right to be angry, the Boston Massacre was utterly uncalled for. John Adams, who was usually against the British and pro-independence, said that his defense of the British soldiers in 1770 was "one of the most gallant, generous, manly, and disinterested actions of my [his] whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I [he] ever rendered my [his] country." (Find more information on the different views of the significant figures of the Boston Massacre here.) With the French out of North America, as a result of the French and Indian War, the colonists were already skeptical about why they needed to have Great Britain protecting them, therefore when the British abruptly changed the way they ruled over the colonies the British gave the colonists an excuse to do something they conceived as productive: the Boston Massacre. (Video reenactment available here.) Although the colonists were merely acting upon their just indignation, they acted foolish and the British soldiers, being there to serve their country, reacted in the only way the knew, which was to fight back and protect themselves and their country. Although the British were doing many unfair things to the colonists at the time, the Boston Massacre was significant because the colonists provoked the British soldiers to shoot into the rowdy crowd. In essence, the Boston Massacre was the result of the colonists believing that they could get away with anything. The independence of the colonies was inevitable; however, there may not have been as many violent and irrational revolts on the road to freedom if Great Britain nipped it's usage of salutary neglect in the bud.

3rd time's a charm...

During class a few people mentioned how the Catholic Church during the 15-1600's was extremely corrupt. I also believe that to be true. It is hard to disagree that the church, at the time, held complete power over the public. The appeal of the Catholic Church had to do with the fact that everyone was a part of it and everyone openly believed in what the clergymen said, because there were no other options. When Copernicus flagrantly admitted his contradicting views in 1543 (on the day of his death), the Catholic Church did not immediately proclaim his ideas as false. The church waited until 1616 to openly denounce the ideas of Copernicus. In my opinion, they waited those 73 years for a reason... When the people of the Catholic Church found out about Copernicus' new theory they realized that it conflicted with their beliefs. Most likely, it took 73 years for a scientist with loyalty to the Church to find out that Copernicus' ideas are valid and consequently proved the notion of divine creation to be false. I know that sounds far fetched... so what do you guys think? I am a Roman Catholic and I have heard about confirmed corruption in a Westfield Parish five years ago. Last summer I closely followed the articles regarding the Catholic Church rape scandals and other serious allegations surrounding the Church. If we think of the Catholic Church as a profitable company with the priceless Vatican collections, it is difficult to comprehend why the Church does not spend more money on feeding the poor and educating our youth. They should embrace progress and science represents progress.

This is an article I found this summer about Sister Mary Margaret—what are your takes on it?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/opinion/27kristof.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=sister%20margaret’s%20choice&st=cse