3 ms·

> Haiti, the second republic in the Americas, elected people who had been slaves. Haitians gained their freedom and formed their republic by genociding all the

> Haiti, the second republic in the Americas, elected people who had been slaves. Haitians gained their freedom and formed their republic by genociding all the white colonialists - men, women, and children - and forming their own society. The US had slaves, and then an internal reform (including a Civil War to put down a rebellion) freed them. The same society that once enslaved people later elected them. Ironically, the genocide of the Haitian Revolution was a justification by the pro-slavery elements who feared the same thing would happen as in Haiti. The land by itself is not the country.

eesmith 9y ago
The earlier statement was that the US is "the only society in history to elect a member of, what was very recently, a slave class to its highest political office". My argument is that Haiti is another example. I think your objection is that "the same society" means it must still be a racially mixed society, and that an act of genocide makes a different country. I can understand that objection. What then does it mean to be part of a "society"? The society which elected Obama contained very few slaveholders or those who profited from domestic slavery, unlike the 1860s US. I'll focus on "to elect a member of". In the 1860s US, blacks, Native Americans, and women could not vote. Are we really the same society? Why does genocide make a difference? Consider the interactions between the US and Native Americans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#United_States_colonization_and_westward_expansion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples... helpfully lists numbers for the Trail of Tears (8,000 Cherokee died) and California Genocide (about 80,000 dead). The Haitian Massacre killed 3,000 to 5,000 whites. I call these acts of genocide. Others will say "These actions were almost certainly in conformity with the laws of war accepted at the time." (quoting http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302 http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302 ). (To which I question: What were the laws of war at the time concerning a successful slave revolt?) If what the US did were acts of genocide, then why are we the same society, but Haitians are not?
watwut 9y ago
Civil war killed 25÷ of males between 18-45 in South. It thoroughly destroyed their way of life (as it was trully slave society). Internal reform is a bit understatement. There were many disagreements and figths over former slaves after, including violence and terrorism and laws to limit their rights (meaning they went from elected to unable to participate in politics). It was not straight line. Women and children died too.
- Amezarak 9y ago
  Nobody went around after the Civil War deliberately killing every single man, woman, and child on the losing side, and forming an entirely new country. This is what happened in Haiti - a full on genocide after the French surrender. Remarking on the extraordinary feat of "electing" a former slave is a little bit strange when almost everyone who wasn't a slave was killed or fled the country. With a few specific exceptions, white people in Haiti became persona non grata who could not own land, etc. The degree to which post-war Haiti could be called a "republic", except nominally, is somewhat questionable as well. Additionally, slavery as a "way of life" destroyed in the South is generally exaggerated. The South was economically dependent on slavery, yes, but slavery was largely an institution of the wealthy planter class. As Grant wrote in his memoirs, most of the Southerners who fought in the Civil War were duped into fighting a war they had no real interest in; the best most of them had going for them was basically "sure, I'm dirt-poor sonofabitch, but at least I ain't a slave". The young men who would have the fighting to do in case of war, believed all these statements, both in regard to the aggressiveness of the North and its cowardice. They, too, cried out for a separation from such people. The great bulk of the legal voters of the South were men who owned no slaves; their homes were generally in the hills and poor country; their facilities for educating their children, even up to the point of reading and writing, were very limited; their interest in the contest was very meagre—what there was, if they had been capable of seeing it, was with the North; they too needed emancipation. Under the old regime they were looked down upon by those who controlled all the affairs in the interest of slave-owners, as poor white trash who were allowed the ballot so long as they cast it according to direction. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4367/4367-h/4367-h.htm#ch17 http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4367/4367-h/4367-h.htm#ch17
  - eesmith 9y ago
    > "The degree to which post-war Haiti could be called a "republic", except nominally, is somewhat questionable as well." The definition of "republic" is quite general, and includes the Roman Republic and the German Democratic Republic, neither of which follow the Madison-derived definition described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States . Haiti had multiple forms of government. Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_of_Haiti https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_of_Hait... : 1.1 Saint-Domingue (1791–1804) 1.2 First Empire of Haiti (1804–1806) 1.3 State of Haiti (1806–1811) 1.4 Kingdom of Haiti (1811–1820) 1.5 Republic of Haiti (1806–1822) 1.6 Republic of Haiti during the unification of Hispaniola (1822–1844) 1.7 Republic of Haiti (1844–1849) 1.8 Second Empire of Haiti (1849–1859) 1.9 Republic of Haiti (1859–present) The 1804 massacre of most of the white population was under Dessalines and the First Empire of Haiti. The republic came later. Faustin Soulouque, who I mentioned earlier, was elected to be the President of the Republic of Haiti in 1847. If you would like, feel free to ignore the "republic" part of my comment. My point holds that I think Haiti is an example where someone born a slave was elected president ... for some definition of the word 'elected.' I can't figure out who was able to vote in his election. As a contributing factor to him coming from an underclass even in a society almost completely urged of white people, he was black in a culture where mulattos had held more political power. (Eg, quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Pierrot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Pierrot "As President of Haiti, he was intended to be a figurehead for the mulatto ruling class.") He organized a massacre of mulattos while he was president, then as emperor he "installed black loyalists in administrative positions ... [and] created a black nobility". BTW, Wikipedia's summaries aren't that detailed and I haven't found better. It's probably that I don't know where to go to look. My DDG search for Faustin Soulouque mostly came up with sites which use Wikipedia as the main source. If there is a reason for why this example does not serve as a useful counter-example, then perhaps it's because there are enough qualifiers in the definition that the original statement "the only society in history to ..." is not actually that useful? Add enough qualifiers and you can make anything sound special.

eesmith 9y ago

The earlier statement was that the US is "the only society in history to elect a member of, what was very recently, a slave class to its highest political office". My argument is that Haiti is another example. I think your objection is that "the same society" means it must still be a racially mixed society, and that an act of genocide makes a different country. I can understand that objection. What then does it mean to be part of a "society"? The society which elected Obama contained very few slaveholders or those who profited from domestic slavery, unlike the 1860s US. I'll focus on "to elect a member of". In the 1860s US, blacks, Native Americans, and women could not vote. Are we really the same society? Why does genocide make a difference? Consider the interactions between the US and Native Americans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples#United_States_colonization_and_westward_expansion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_of_indigenous_peoples... helpfully lists numbers for the Trail of Tears (8,000 Cherokee died) and California Genocide (about 80,000 dead). The Haitian Massacre killed 3,000 to 5,000 whites. I call these acts of genocide. Others will say "These actions were almost certainly in conformity with the laws of war accepted at the time." (quoting http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302 http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302 ). (To which I question: What were the laws of war at the time concerning a successful slave revolt?) If what the US did were acts of genocide, then why are we the same society, but Haitians are not?

watwut 9y ago

Civil war killed 25÷ of males between 18-45 in South. It thoroughly destroyed their way of life (as it was trully slave society). Internal reform is a bit understatement. There were many disagreements and figths over former slaves after, including violence and terrorism and laws to limit their rights (meaning they went from elected to unable to participate in politics). It was not straight line. Women and children died too.

Amezarak 9y ago
Nobody went around after the Civil War deliberately killing every single man, woman, and child on the losing side, and forming an entirely new country. This is what happened in Haiti - a full on genocide after the French surrender. Remarking on the extraordinary feat of "electing" a former slave is a little bit strange when almost everyone who wasn't a slave was killed or fled the country. With a few specific exceptions, white people in Haiti became persona non grata who could not own land, etc. The degree to which post-war Haiti could be called a "republic", except nominally, is somewhat questionable as well. Additionally, slavery as a "way of life" destroyed in the South is generally exaggerated. The South was economically dependent on slavery, yes, but slavery was largely an institution of the wealthy planter class. As Grant wrote in his memoirs, most of the Southerners who fought in the Civil War were duped into fighting a war they had no real interest in; the best most of them had going for them was basically "sure, I'm dirt-poor sonofabitch, but at least I ain't a slave". The young men who would have the fighting to do in case of war, believed all these statements, both in regard to the aggressiveness of the North and its cowardice. They, too, cried out for a separation from such people. The great bulk of the legal voters of the South were men who owned no slaves; their homes were generally in the hills and poor country; their facilities for educating their children, even up to the point of reading and writing, were very limited; their interest in the contest was very meagre—what there was, if they had been capable of seeing it, was with the North; they too needed emancipation. Under the old regime they were looked down upon by those who controlled all the affairs in the interest of slave-owners, as poor white trash who were allowed the ballot so long as they cast it according to direction. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4367/4367-h/4367-h.htm#ch17 http://www.gutenberg.org/files/4367/4367-h/4367-h.htm#ch17
- eesmith 9y ago
  > "The degree to which post-war Haiti could be called a "republic", except nominally, is somewhat questionable as well." The definition of "republic" is quite general, and includes the Roman Republic and the German Democratic Republic, neither of which follow the Madison-derived definition described at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic#United_States . Haiti had multiple forms of government. Quoting from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_of_Haiti https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heads_of_state_of_Hait... : 1.1 Saint-Domingue (1791–1804) 1.2 First Empire of Haiti (1804–1806) 1.3 State of Haiti (1806–1811) 1.4 Kingdom of Haiti (1811–1820) 1.5 Republic of Haiti (1806–1822) 1.6 Republic of Haiti during the unification of Hispaniola (1822–1844) 1.7 Republic of Haiti (1844–1849) 1.8 Second Empire of Haiti (1849–1859) 1.9 Republic of Haiti (1859–present) The 1804 massacre of most of the white population was under Dessalines and the First Empire of Haiti. The republic came later. Faustin Soulouque, who I mentioned earlier, was elected to be the President of the Republic of Haiti in 1847. If you would like, feel free to ignore the "republic" part of my comment. My point holds that I think Haiti is an example where someone born a slave was elected president ... for some definition of the word 'elected.' I can't figure out who was able to vote in his election. As a contributing factor to him coming from an underclass even in a society almost completely urged of white people, he was black in a culture where mulattos had held more political power. (Eg, quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Pierrot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Louis_Pierrot "As President of Haiti, he was intended to be a figurehead for the mulatto ruling class.") He organized a massacre of mulattos while he was president, then as emperor he "installed black loyalists in administrative positions ... [and] created a black nobility". BTW, Wikipedia's summaries aren't that detailed and I haven't found better. It's probably that I don't know where to go to look. My DDG search for Faustin Soulouque mostly came up with sites which use Wikipedia as the main source. If there is a reason for why this example does not serve as a useful counter-example, then perhaps it's because there are enough qualifiers in the definition that the original statement "the only society in history to ..." is not actually that useful? Add enough qualifiers and you can make anything sound special.