How the Haitian Revolution changed America and ADOS forever

[Secure Da Bag]

@HarlemHottie @xoxodede @*DalMem* @Tony_Bromo @K.O.N.Y go back to Page 6, near the bottom.

 

[El Bombi]

@HarlemHottie @xoxodede @*DalMem* @Tony_Bromo @K.O.N.Y scroll up a little.

OP is a retard. I've thrown breh in the bushes a while ago.

I've notice that a lot of these Anti-ADOS brehs be using multiple alias and OP is one of them.

 

[Samori Toure]

What is lost in regards to the Haitian Revolution is that France was also in the middle of the Napoleonianic Wars in Europe. At the halt of those hostilities England, France and other European nations entered into the Treaty of Amiens. The treaty required the following:

Britain to return the Cape Colony to the Batavian Republic;
Britain to return most of its captured Dutch West Indian islands to the Batavian Republic;
Britain to withdraw its forces from Egypt;
The ceding to Britain of Trinidad, Tobago and Ceylon;
France to withdraw its forces from the Papal States and the Kingdom of Naples;
The borders of French Guiana to be fixed;
Malta, Gozo, and Comino to be restored to the Knights Hospitaller and to be declared neutral;
The island of Minorca be returned to Spain;
The House of Orange-Nassau to be compensated for its losses in the Netherlands.

Treaty of Amiens

So France knew that it could not hold the Louisiana Territory in the USA and the only question that remained was whether England or the USA would take the territory. So Napoleon decided to sale the land to the USA to spite England, because he realized that it was going to be taken anyway but he did not want the English to have it.

 

[you're NOT "n!ggas"]

The Haitian Revolution had about the same impact on the Civil War and slavery in the USA as the Mexican-American war did. The USA got the lands out west after defeating Mexico, which is how California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico and the remaining portion Texas got into the Union.


The same problem existed after the USA gained land from the Louisiana Purchase as did after the USA gained land after the Mexican-American War, which is that many of the settlers/homesteaders/land thieves and politicians did not want slavery expanded into those new territories because the small farmers would not have been able to compete financially with large plantation owners that had slave workforce; and the plantation owners would have eventually become a defacto ruling class in those States.

The foundation for the Civil War was laid much earlier than the Haitian Revolution. There was already issues with slavery at the time of the American Revolution, because the English and the Northern American Whites were undergoing anti-slavery sentiment at that time. The sentiment grew worse when the English gave slaves under their control freedom when they fought for England against the Americans. After that war the English kept interfering in American affairs and eventually they tapped into the anti-Union sentiment of Southerners. However, the English themselves were anti-slavery at that time so they were just using the Southerners to create friction with the Union; so England was not completely neutral during the Civil War. Then there were Supreme Court cases and the election of Abraham Lincoln that were the final issues leading up to the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln then pulled the same crap that the English pulled during the American Revolution by freeing slaves, except the slaves he freed were Southern slaves that he did not control, but he left the Northern slaves in bondage. The Civil War did not actually end slavery though. It was actually the passage of the 13th Amendment that ended human bondage in the USA.

In any event the lead up to the Civil War had a lot of different components and one of the biggest components that no one ever mentions is that the slaves themselves were getting in more and more rebellions. One of the biggest in the Western hemisphere was the Seminole Indian War in Florida, which was actually a large scale slave rebellion by the Gullah people.

Breh... REP for taking the thread topic head on We gotta continue this when I get back but yes, I agree that the Mexican American war had an impact on America, the Civil War, and ADOS lives. Strangely enough, that's earned daps.

The thing is... The Mexican-American War likely wouldn't have happened if America hadn't encroached the Louisiana territory. America may have had a plan, but that doesn't mean the French didn't have one of their own as well. That's a large part of my point: Haiti knocked France of it's square/plans for the Americas. And yeah... Its expected that you bleed money when one, you have a war-hawk like Napoleon and two, the richest colony in the world (which you "own") is in the throws of their revolution.

You are way overstating the case of the Haitian Revolution on the USA. The USA had already muscled European nations out of paint, which is why England and Spain territories in the Americas were already gone. France was going to lose its territories in the USA regardless of the outcome in Haiti, which is why they decided to cut bait and sell it off before the USA attacked them under a pretense of war. The USA settlers were already in those territories anyway, because they wanted to control the Mississippi River.

Besides that the USA had already mapped those territories, which is further proof that they intended to take them. Notice that in the 1700s places like North Carolina extended all the way through Tennessee to the Mississippi River. Memphis and the rest of West Tennessee was not part of the Louisiana Purchase until 1803, but you can clearly see that England (America) was laying claim to it as far back as the 1660s, which was well over 100 years before the Haitian Revolution. The same with Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Kentucky, etc.

If the French had won in Haiti then France would have still sold the land to the USA, because they were heavily in debt and they needed cash because they were still at war in Europe.

I don't think that people truly grasp how insulated the USA is and has always been when it comes to foreign wars.

France sold because the land was useless for them without Haiti and they needed a boost. Jefferson was interested in New Orleans in particular-- I don't think he expected them to counter with the entire territory. That's not how negotiations usually work.

Again, my pretense is that things wouldn't have occurred the way they did without the HR. Maybe there would've been a revolution of our own, but we really can't say. Expanding slavery into the new territory doesn't exactly make sense, that's just more uprisings occuring on newly acquired land. Maybe the southerners saw it as a way to disperse us though.

 

[Samori Toure]

Breh... REP for taking the thread topic head on We gotta continue this when I get back but yes, I agree that the Mexican American war had an impact on America, the Civil War, and ADOS lives. Strangely enough, that's earned daps.

The thing is... The Mexican-American War likely wouldn't have happened if America hadn't encroached the Louisiana territory. America may have had a plan, but that doesn't mean the French didn't have one of their own as well. That's a large part of my point: Haiti knocked France of it's square/plans for the Americas. And yeah... Its expected that you bleed money when one, you have a war-hawk like Napoleon and two, the richest colony in the world (which you "own") is in the throws of their revolution.


France sold because the land was useless for them without Haiti and they needed a boost. Jefferson was interested in New Orleans in particular-- I don't think he expected them to counter with the entire territory. That's not how negotiations usually work.

Again, my pretense is that things wouldn't have occurred the way they did without the HR. Maybe there would've been a revolution of our own, but we really can't say. Expanding slavery into the new territory doesn't exactly make sense, that's just more uprisings occuring on newly acquired land. Maybe the southerners saw it as a way to disperse us though.

As I advised you earlier; historical events cannot be viewed in a vacuum. I think I understand what you are trying to point out, but the Louisiana Purchase was just one part of a larger set of later events that happened in the USA like the Missouri Compromise and the Northwest Ordinance which set the scene for the Supreme Court case of Dred Scott which was the final straw leading up to the Civil War.

As for the Louisiana Territories themselves they actually belonged Spain until 6 years before they were actually sold by France to the USA. You can read the rest of this if you want, but it is just a brief history of how all of this crap got kicked off. To begin with France had ceded most of their land east of the Mississippi River to England at the end of the Seven Year War. France ceded their land West of the Mississippi to Spain at the end of that war in the secret Treaty of Fontainebleau in 1762. After Spain got the land they explored areas along the Mississippi River, which is where they met the Mississippi Indians who are the ancestors of the Chickasaw Indians. If you go to Mississippi right now you will see places named Hernando and Desoto, which are named after the Spanish explorer Hernando DeSoto.

Spain saw the strength of the English in British North America and they knew that the Americans were expansionist; which meant that Spain knew that they would not be able to hold the Louisiana Territories and more practically Spain knew that the territory was too large and it was too much space for them to defend. So Spain secured the eastern and western sides of Florida from England, which fit their holdings in South Florida and Spain ceded the Louisiana Territory back to France 1796, but the French knew that they could not hold the territory either. So France sold it to the USA 6 years later in order to keep the English from getting the land.

However, the English were still intent on getting those territories and for that matter they intended to take back the USA, which is why the English and Americans had the War of 1812. That is also why New Orleans was central to that fight.

LOUISIANA: TO HAVE AND TO HAVE NOT... - napoleon.org
https://www.history.com/news/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-louisiana-purchase
Late Victory: Andrew Jackson and the Battle of New Orleans

So you can see that France did not even own the Louisiana Territories long enough after getting them back from Spain to really support your argument. All that Napoleon did was to pick who he wanted to have the land (USA), but it was clear that he did not want England to have the land because the English were his enemies. The Haitian Revolution had an impact in the USA, but not anywhere near impact you are trying to assign to it. For starters most of the slave holders in the USA were small and their plantations only averaged 2-4 people on them; which was different than the large open plantations in the Caribbean and in South America that had hundreds if not thousands of slaves on them. So there were never enough Americans slaves gathered in one place to have that type of revolution, which meant that hearing about what happened in a far off place like Haiti didn't impact as much as you think. However, there was a problem with runaway slaves in the USA because England, France and Spain kept freeing them once the slaves reached Canada, Mexico and Florida. Despite treaties with those countries they would not return the runaway slaves, which frustrated slave owners in the USA. To make matters worse Spain left large tracts of swamp land open in north and central Florida for slaves and the Indians (the Seminoles), which acted as a buffer zone between Spain and the USA. That was the genesis for the Seminole Indian wars, because the USA wanted to clear out those swamps and allow white settlers/land thieves to move into Florida from Georgia, South Carolina and North Carolina.

The final insult to the Southerners leading up to the Civil War was that Northerners refused to honor Dred Scott and they kept giving freedom to runaway slaves that made it to the North. The Dred Scott decision gave rise to election of Abraham Lincoln.

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia

 

[96Blue]

So, OP wasn't right in that sense?



Ok, cool.

 

[Samori Toure]

So, OP wasn't right in that sense?



Ok, cool.

The problem with his theory is that he is trying to ascribe too much that happened in the USA after the Haitian Revolution with the reality of what actually did happen. He also did not take into account other world events. France was on it's last legs in British North America (USA) so they just took the cash and ran, before England actually had a chance to invade and take the French territories. Even if England had not taken the French territories it was clear to France that the USA had expansionist intentions and the USA was just looking for a pretend reason to attack the French territories, so the French decided to sale it rather than lose it for nothing. The thing to remember is that American citizens were already in those territories anyway, so Napoleon said screw it. He took the cash and he ran.

What the Haitian Revolution did accomplish was to help Europe to ultimately get rid of Napoleon. The Haitian Revolution also had a large impact on all of the Americas and Africa regarding slavery, because England realized that the money earned from slavery is all that actually kept countries like Spain, Portugal and France afloat. So England decided to blockade the West African coast a few years later to stop the slave trade. The Americans helped in that blockade and on top of that the USA blockaded their own coastline, to prevent new slaves from being brought from West Africa to the Americas. The blockade by the Americans on their own coast was clearly designed to weaken the Southern slave caste.

Portugal on the other hand eventually stayed further South in Africa to avoid the British Navy on Africa's West coast, which is why Congo and places like Madagascar, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and South Africa provided so many new slaves to Brazil.

Blockade of Africa - Wikipedia

So all of that stuff was the lead up to the Civil War and as shown it was engineered mostly by England in order to weaken its enemies (USA, France, Spain and Portugal). Mind you now those were not benevolent moves by Britain, because Britain did not actually end slavery in their territories until the 1830s, which was a move designed to weaken the USA, because after the blockade on the West African coast happened; the Southerners in the USA had to turn to small scale slave smuggling from West Africa but that was too dangerous and very expensive. So in turn all new slaves in the USA were mostly purchased in the Caribbean or from the Upper South in the USA. So to stop America from getting strong the British banned slavery in it's own territories and then they had the British Navy to intercept American slave ships in the Caribbean. So the moves by England was designed to choke out competition of France, Spain, Portugal and the USA. It worked against Spain and Portugal, because they were moved off the World stage. However, the USA, France and then England entered into the industrial revolution so they were able to stay on top even though France was severely weakened. France didn't really get back in the game until the race for Africa happened, which should explain why France is desperately trying to hold on to it's colonies in West Africa. Without those colonies France is nothing more than Spain and Portugal.

 

[get these nets]

@Samori Toure , are you @Akan?
I recognize the posting style (and length of posts)

@ciroq drobama ,
Wow, you're really on the coli when you're on The Love Boat, huh?

I thought the thread would continue once you got back home.

But if you're here, I'll keep it concise so that it's easier for you(or anybody) to read and respond

So I brought up the role the Haitian Revolution played on the United States and for some reason, people either have a hard time believing or or seeing it. I got negged/challenged to bring the debate here, so it's a bet.

I'll share a few youtube videos and links that reiterate the same point over and over again, but it's really simple:

1. The Civil War was largely over whether or not to expand slavery in the west.
2. The "west" was the Louisiana territory, by the US from France in 1803.
3. The French DID NOT give up this land for no reason. Haiti was the richest colony in the world at the time, and crucial to their plans in the "new world"
4. Haitians victory over the French dissolved any plans they had here .

Had the French defeated Haiti, cities such as St. Louis, New Orleans, etc would be under French control. We're talking trillions in resources, industrialization, trade routes on the Mississippi river would ALL be in French hands. A win for them quite would've led to France becoming the world's super power. America would be vastly different. What would the Civil War be about if not for the contention on slavery in the new west? Would there even be a war? Would they rely on slave labor even more given their limited land and resources? Would we have become a country for European immigrants to immigrate to? All these questions and more hang in the balance if Haiti lost-- and we're just talking about America here. I see it said often that immigrants should be grateful for the contributions we made that allowed them to be here-- and that's definitely true. But likewise... it's important for us to reciprocate and acknowledge what their contributions meant for our world as well.

Conflicts between Euro powers were waged in Europe and spilled over into their colonies in the Americas
For that reason, different Euro powers claimed or seized any given island at different times..(including Hispaniola aka modern day Haiti & Dom. Rep.)
Euro powers got involved in conflicts between other countries depending on how the potential outcome could serve their best interests. France supported the 13 colonies in the Revolutionary War against England for example. No permanent allies, only permanent interests.
The Haitian Revolution didn't occur in a vacuum. 19th Century conflicts were being played out across the region, both between different countries/colonies and within countries/ colonies. Everything was in flux. While the loss of St. Domingue(Haiti) had a huge impact on world and regional history, the conflicts between these Euro powers continued well after the Louisiana Purchase.

Now, the Haitian Revolution directly impacted the lives of Africans enslaved in the South American colonies. Post independence, Haitian leaders provided arms, supplies and soldiers to Simon Bolivar and helped him set off the independence movements in Latin America. They stated as conditions for that assistance that slavery be abolished in the newly independent colonies.

 

[Samori Toure]

@Samori Toure , are you @Akan?
I recognize the posting style (and length of posts)

Yeah I was Akan. I change the screen name every year or so.

Sorry about the length of the post, but there was a lot of stuff happening during the time of the Haitian Revolution inside and outside of America and Haiti that had nothing to do with America or Haiti, but it impacted both Countries.

 

[get these nets]

Having written what I've already written, I don't think the facts support something else that I've read here

The perception or implication that Africans here were sitting on their hands, not resisting or revolting UNTIL the Haitian Revolution is completely false. Though I don't think that was what Ciroq wrote or implied.
In challenging that implication, some here wrote that hardly any Africans here even knew anything about the Haitian Revolution.
I disagree with that and I don't think the facts support it.
The system of communication of enslaved people in this country, even in remote locations, is well documented. The existence of the Underground Railroad, for example. People even in the deepest South were able to escape North to freedom because of these communications channels.

We identify slavery in this hemisphere with plantations and farms, but remember Africans did ALL types of work. The nature of some of the work is what allowed the spread of information through this network

Spoiler: grapevine telegraph

Enslaved people working the loading docks in port cities would hear the latest news from the other enslaved Africans working on the incoming ships, or from the whites talking among each other. It was said that there was measures taken here to restrict ships coming in from other colonies because the sailors were airing out the news of France taking that L.

Spoiler: spread of the news of Haitian Revolution

By Afro-American, in the subtitle of the book, the author was referring to Africans enslaved throughout the Americas. This passage is about Africans in antebellum America. The legal measures taken by slavers were based on paranoia, not by an actual increase in rebellions.
and those demons had every reason to be paranoid

There's a documentary posted in this section about Slave Catchers, and it stressed how strongly whites sought to control information among Africans. The passage posted above is along those lines


https://www.thecoli.com/threads/slave-catchers-slave-resisters-the-origins-of-the-police.695563/

 

[intruder]

Putting history is in its proper place is key. The Haitian Revolution for all its effects is still a separate issue from ADOS. Conflating the two to push a Pan-African narrative doesn't help the situation at all. It causes unnecessary conflict and muddies an already complicated situation.

My people managed an amazing and miraculous thing. The ADOS brethren here have never, in the time I've been here, disrespected it, not acknowledged it, or tried to take anything away from it. But the HR is that and the ADOS is this. There's no need to blur those lines.

You arent paying close enough attention if you're saying the bolded. Over the years i have read plenty of dumb shyt on the Coli of random 'ADOS' trying to discredit it. The most recent one was a few weeks ago where someone claimed the British helped us a lot out of spite for France. I'll see if i can look up the post and add the link to this post.

I'm not saying it's widespread but there are plenty of cats on the Coli who be spewing dumb shyt about it.

As for your first paragraph, I agreee

 

[get these nets]

You arent paying close enough attention if you're saying the bolded. Over the years i have read plenty of dumb shyt on the Coli of random 'ADOS' trying to discredit it. The most recent one was a few weeks ago where someone claimed the British helped us a lot out of spite for France. I'll see if i can look up the post and add the link to this post.

I'm not saying it's widespread but there are plenty of cats on the Coli who be spewing dumb shyt about it.

As for your first paragraph, I agreee

The Haitian Revolution was a complex and complicated set of events over 12 years. England,Spain,US had their own interests in mind as the conflict was playing out on St. Domingue, as their actions demonstrated. At different points the Africans switched alliances to protect their own interests too.
I'd like to see that thread and see in what context the person made that comment.

I think many of the details and events of the HR are not known to people outside of historians. Haitians and non Haitians are misinformed or uninformed about the full story. If the person made that comment as a dig , I hope the others in the thread CORRECTED him with the right information. If it was on TLR ,I'm gonna guess that people threw insults and smilies back at him, but that people didn't correct what he stated.

 

[intruder]

The Haitian Revolution was a complex and complicated set of events over 12 years. England,Spain,US had their own interests in mind as the conflict was playing out on St. Domingue, as their actions demonstrated. At different points the Africans switched alliances to protect their own interests too.
I'd like to see that thread and see in what context the person made that comment.

I think many of the details and events of the HR are not known to people outside of historians. Haitians and non Haitians are misinformed or uninformed about the full story. If the person made that comment as a dig , I hope the others in the thread CORRECTED him with the right information. If it was on TLR ,I'm gonna guess that people threw insults and smilies back at him, but that people didn't correct what he stated.

It was as a dig. I cant find the thread as i dont remember the thread title. I have to search using keywords in my own response to him. And i was the only one who responded to him from what i recall.

 

[xoxodede]

@HarlemHottie @xoxodede @*DalMem* @Tony_Bromo @K.O.N.Y go back to Page 6, near the bottom.

I don't get it -- what happened? What am I looking for?

I'm slow.

 

[Secure Da Bag]

I don't get it -- what happened? What am I looking for?

I'm slow.

https://www.thecoli.com/posts/34254264/