Perfect Timing

Slavery has been enmeshed in nearly every society for thousands of years, and throughout time, rebellion has erupted from slaves. Although slaves have always counted for a large part of the population during a rebellion, there has only been one successful slave rebellion – the Haitian Revolution. The Haitian Revolution occurred from 1791 to 1804 on the prosperous Island of Saint Domingue (after the revolution it was named Haiti). There are many factors that contribute to the success of the Haitian Revolution such as the sheer amount of slaves, the brilliant military leader L’Ouverture Toussaint, and the anger from years of oppression by slaves, but the must vital factor is timing. The Haitian Revolution was inspired by the ideals of the French Revolution, (1789-1799) liberty, equality, and fraternity. The idea of equality motivated Haitian slaves who were being oppressed by the whites and to some extent the free blacks. Without the ideas of the French Revolution, the slaves might not have had the inspiration and ideas to ever rise up. In addition to the French Revolution, while Haiti occupied half of the island known as Hispania, Spain owned the other half. L’Ouverture cleverly joined alliance with Spain against France, and then when the time came, he drove the Spanish out. If the Spanish had not occupied the same island, then L’Ouverture would have never gotten the support of the Spanish. Also, Britain was at war with France and was thus able to keep France at bay while L’Ouverture gained power. After the French Revolution, Santhonax was able to grant freedom for slaves, and although it did not last, it showed slaves the possibility of freedom and make them hunger for freedom more. While Napoleon’s rule of France, set L’Ouverture back, and eventually caused his death, after he was killed Dessalines was able to re-rally the slaves and get them ready to fight. Eventually the Haitian slaves overpowered the French army and gained equality. While L’Ouverture’s leadership skills were incredible, the Haitian Revolution could have only occurred during the French Revolution. The ideals and the chances presented by the French Revolution were unparallel and vital to the success of the Haitian Revolution.

A Spoon Full of Rebellion

While rebellions tend to be rooted in violence and can often cause alarming problems, they are also vital for society to progress. Not only are there “checks and balances” within a government, but the people of a society and the entire government check and balance each other, and a rebellion is one way the people check the government. Yet, in some cases the response of the government on a rebellion can be one way the government checks the people. On one prominent rebellion that took place early in the development of the United States, Thomas Jefferson said, “I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people, which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” I think that Jefferson was right in his positive outlook on rebellions because he knew that sometimes the only way to get what’s right and fair is to rebel, which is exactly what the Americans did to Britain.

The rebellion Jefferson spoke of was Shays’s rebellion, where angry farmers in various parts of New England rallied behind Daniel Shays (a former captain in the U.S. continental army) to protest the burdensome taxes placed on them. The rebellion lasted for about two years, and finally came to an end in January 1787, when an army of state militiamen met Shays’s rebellion and dispersed them. Although Shays’s rebellion did not have a profound effect on taxes and farmers, it did cause the urgency for a new national constitution to increase. When the news of Shay’s rebellion spread through the states, it urged many leaders to appear at the national convention, where many prominent leaders met to discuss the future of America. They were implored by Shays’s rebellion because it showed that the national government needed to strength its grasp on the people, while also alleviating the burdens of taxes on the people. The national convention was the starting point of the writing of a new constitution, and the rebirth of a new nation. Without the outrage caused by Shay’s rebellion, many of the famous leaders who appeared at the convention (such as George Washington) might not have come.

Another rebellion was the Whiskey Rebellion, which took place in 1794. Farmers of Western Pennsylvania refused to pay the excise tax on whiskey, and often resorted to harassing tax collectors. At Hamilton’s urging, George Washington summoned the militia of three states, gathering a total of 15,000 men, and personally marched the troops to Pennsylvania. Once the rebellion saw the troops, they quickly dispersed, and the government ended up winning the allegiance of the Whiskey rebels by intimidation. Unlike Shays’s rebellion, the Whiskey rebellion was the government’s “check” of the people. The results of the Whiskey rebellion proved to the people that the government was strong, and united enough to bring down further problems. Moreover, the Whiskey rebellion showed the progression of the American Government from Shays’s rebellion, and ultimately tarnished the appeal of another rebellion.

While resulting in evil or justice, a rebellion is a “medicine necessary” for the balance between the power of the government and the strength of the people.

Give Me Freedom, or Give me Representation

Although there are multiple varying causes for a revolution, usually a major social or economical issue is rooted at its core. For the American Revolution, such causes are not evident. In Gordon S. Wood’s essay Radical Possibilities of the American Revolution, he claims, “ [There was] no mass poverty, no seething social discontent, no grinding oppression. For most white Americans there was greater prosperity than anywhere else in the world.” Of course not all of the colonies were prosperous, but through hard work and determination most of the colonies thrived, without the help of Britain. After the French and Indian War, the colonies didn’t need Britain to protect them, and therefore (for the most part), Britain wasn’t involved in the development of the colonies. Yet, the colonies were still part of Britain, and wanted representation, but they didn’t get it. Thus, they were left to develop the colonies on their own, and in turn created a new way of governing and living. When England did try to interfere, colonists became either angered or suspicious. In England’s first involvement with colonies after the war, they imposed numerous taxes such as the Mutiny Act of 1765, the Sugar Act of 1764, the Currency Act of 1764, and most importantly the Stamp Act of 1765. After working vigorously to keep afloat, the colonies were angered and also fearful that they were trying to be degraded, and made inferior to Britain. There reasoning for this was simple, the taxation had no representation. In addition to being fearful about taxation by the British, when the British showed compassion or passed a “helpful” law, the colonists were skeptical. For example, the Quebec Act, extended the boundaries of Quebec to include the French communities between the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, and also granted political rights to Roman Catholics. While, the Quebec Act showed religious tolerance, many colonists believed it was a plot (by the British) to subject Americans to the authority of the pope.

The main reason why colonists protested most of the laws set upon them by the British was because they had an initial taste of freedom and self-government. Once their eyes were opened to the possibilities of fidelity, they were inevitably going to doubt everything that others forced them to do; they were no longer naïve or ignorant. Albeit, numerous colonists wanted to be part of Britain (hence the petitioning for representation) they also wanted to be American, and free, and unfortunately they couldn’t have both. Patrick Henry’s famous line, “give me liberty or give me death,” sums up the American sentiment toward the British in the period leading up to the war. They were desperate, and tired of being ignored by the British, and perhaps coming to the realization that the freedom in America was priceless, and being part of a grandiose country like Britain paled in comparison. Americans hungered for freedom once they got a taste of it, and subconsciously they knew that reverting back living by the word of Britain was impossible.

The idea of good and evil has been rooted in various parts of civilization, culture, and society. According to Genesis, when Adam and Eve eat off the tree of good and evil, they see what god sees. They aren't born with any concept of good or evil, they are innocent and naive, and like this idea in Genesis, John Locke believed that people were born without any understanding of good or evil. He believed that at birth the human mind is a like a blank tablet, tabula rasa, and that over time's one's environment becomes inscribed on the tablet. Do you agree with Lockte, or do you agree with Decartes, who believed humans are born with a general understanding of the world? As soon as I read Lockte's theory on a human's mind, I thought of Sigmund Froid's model of the psyche. Froid believed that the psyche was divided into id, ego, and superego. All humans are born with id, or subconscious animalistic instincts to cry, to eat, etc. Ego, starts out as conscious, but throughout one's life it become subconscious; it's an effort to get one's wants, but in a socially acceptable way. Finally, superego is a conscious effort at perfection, which society expects of one. All humans are born with id, and it's all we know; we don't care about anyone else, it's all about self-satisfaction and doing anything to get it, and for frankly we don’t know any better. We expect everyone to get us what we want when we want it. Therefore, at birth we don't know if we're being mean, all we know is "I". As we grow older, we develop ego; we're not as self-centered, we realize that there others and that we need to share, but we are still selfish. When we’re young children, we are very trusting of people and we are gullible, but when we're deceived it's mind-boggling and we react with strong emotions. As we grow, it becomes natural to expect disappointment. Interacting with society, and suffering the consequences of our flaws start the formation of superego. When we're young, our parents reprimand us by saying things like, "No that's bad," "Don't do that." Through interacting, we understanding how nice people are supposed to act, while simultaneously learning that others are deceitful and evil. We then develop a front, superego, through which we try to radiate kindness. After this process is complete, we all have the idea of good and evil, but that doesn't mean we are all pure and friendly, we choose (whether it be subconsciously or consciously) to act in certain manners. Like a tablet, we can erase concepts from our memory, but the remnants always remain. Do you think we can ever forget the concept of good and evil?

Although we develop a sense of good and evil in our lives (as Lockte proclaimed), we also always have our id within us, and according to Thomas Hobbes, "with a common power to keep them all [men] in awe, they are in that condition which is called war, and such war as is of every man against every man." When men go to war, good and evil are at the backdrop of the scene, and we all go back to birth-where we know nothing. Do you agree with this? All there is to do is to defend oneself. He also says that as a result of war there is, "continual fear," because although brute headed, we still know of evil and people’s capabilities. The theme of war between men manifests itself in William Golding's novel Lord of the Flies. In the novel, a group of boys end up stranded on an island without the eye of society on them, they break into war with each other. At first they get along, but quickly their superegos crumble and their ids burns through. Eventually some of the boys are oblivious to their evil ways, while three characters still have their understanding of good and evil. Not only is there a continuous war between the boys, but there is also a battle between good an evil and by the end of the novel, we realize that the two go hand and hand. Sometimes the line between good and evil gets blurred, and the perception of good and evil varies from person to person. In society good and evil are omnipresent, and as we progress in our lives, our understanding of them grows. Do you think our perception of good and evil changes throughout one’s life?