Haitian Voodoo

Voodoo was a common practice during the Haitian Revolution, and also still popular in parts of Haiti and New Orleans. During the Haitian Revolution, black slaves had used this religion to create a sense of unity amongst them and gave them confidence through sacrifice and ritual offerings. It helped them in feeling that they had something of their own, which is where this religion came from. Black slaves used it as a way of being connected to one another, swearing oaths of secrecy and revenge. Also, voodoo incorporated many Enlightenment ideas as well such as freedom and equality.
However, in today's society, voodoo is another religion and way of life/religion. Today's society still has voodoo as one of its many religions and beliefs, however, voodoo is looked upon in a negative way in today's culture. Many people question the practices as being unethical and immoral, which include sacrifices and offerings to their gods. These sacrifices may not only be of small pieces of food and animals, but can actually sometimes include humans. The religion is based on aggression and revenge on the aggressive people in the world. When an individual is born, it is said that they are in the evil class on earth, and to become good, they must swear to gain revenge on the evil side. Many people are intolerant of such a religion, based on such violence and tension between people. The use of "voodoo dolls" is a common and well-known practice in the religion, using them to hurt other individuals that you are not in favor with. Is this moral? Do you think it is ok to be revengeful and hateful towards evil? Does this make you evil itself? Was it appropriate during the Haitian Revolution or not?
I think that this kind of religion was appropriate during the Haitian Revolution, because the black slaves put the title of "evil" on the white people who would not grant them liberty, freedom, or equality creating a base of revenge and hate for the religion. The black slaves believed themselves to be the positive force, which I agree with, for without this first abolition of slavery, other nations would have difficulty in accepting a society where everyone is equal. It was appropriate in a way that it allowed the black slaves to have the determination to be able to fight the white population, as they were lacking much support. The only ones who had support the slaves honestly were the slaves themselves, so giving themselves a cause and reasoning behind it coming from religion was good for them and the revolution. Spain had helped the slaves, but not caring for the slaves, but for corruption and chaos in French society. Voodoo religion was able to give the black slaves something to believe in and was able to give them the motivation to be able to keep the revolution going until they were able to finally achieve the abolition of slavery in 1804.

Nationalism

Around 1793, France was becoming a more civilized, economically organized, and politically fair country. It was finally able to center it's government, lower prices on bread, and have their citizens look upon war as a negative thing. They formed a planned economy with egalitarian social overtones, which had pleased many citizens, as it set fixed prices on many goods, bread being a key item, as it was the most desired item for food from the poor. They made arms and munitions for war efforts, and the government told craftsmen what to produce, nationalized many small workshops, and requisitioned raw materials and grain. This led to an idea of nationalism, France thinking of itself as a nation. A person of France's identity was that they were French, and not part of a smaller state or region. They became stirred by a common loyalty and formed an emotional commitment to the defense of their nation. However, its effect is debatable: was it beneficial? or for the worse? It was obvious as to how it was beneficial, but would it cause a sort of feeling of "too much unity" or "too much pride" in the country?
I feel that it would be good for a country like France, because unity is a great aspect to have in a society. Having confidence in your country, and the feeling that your country is superior is beneficial. It helps spread influence, and gives the country a higher reputation. It helps in aspects of military and foreign relations, as it gives soldiers confidence, and gives France a decorated look to other countries.

The Constitutional Convention and the First Parties

After the American's had won their independence from the British they had been governing themselves under the Articles of Confederation. However, there were many problems with this government under the Articles, the reason mainly being that the government was too weak under the Articles. It gave the government no taxing power, and depended on the generosity of the states to create revenue and give money to the government. It also had no power to force the delinquent states to pay. James Madison had suggested a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland in 1786, which called for delegates from each state to attend. This was known to be the Annapolis Convention. Then, they decided to meet in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787 to discuss ways to only improve the Articles of Confederation.

The Articles were not improved, but rather trashed, and made once again from scratch, into what we now call the Constitution. The Constitution was a merging of all the plans that were proposed during the Constitutional Conventions; the Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan, the Charles Pinckey Plans, Hamilton's plan, and the Connecticut Compromise. Many of the Founding Fathers had greatly appreciated this change, having faith that the 3 branch government, representation methods, and new power given to the government, would being the Colonies into an age of success. However, there were some of the Fathers and other major political figures that did not approve. Patrick Henry, for example, thought that the Constitution would give the central government too much power. He said power should lay in the hands of the states. It was also lacking a Bill of Rights. This was a cause to the separation of people named the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. This was a split in the people, which had defeated the purpose of the Constitution, to be one country, to be equal, and to be unified.
After the Constitution was passed, there was debate as to what kind of people were to run the government. There were some who proposed that well-educated, upper class citizens should run the government, who were called Federalists. This was close to the ruling system in Britain, and made the colonists think of a monarch in our government.The Federalist party was created by Alexander Hamilton. The Federalist party called for a national bank, tariffs, and a good relationship with Britain. The only Federalist president was John Adams. Of course, there was the opposite belief, and this created the Democratic-Republican party, the party which had thought that all citizens should have equal say in the government, and that positions in the government were open to any citizen of the Colonies. The Republicans, as they were also called, favored France over the British, in the war that had occurred between them. They favored farmers and plantation owners to be the backbone of the Colonial economy, which they felt allowed them to hold government positions. This party had also favored a strict interpretation of the Constitution, unlike the Federalists who had believed in a loose interpretation of the Constitution.
These two groups had divided the government, another division in the forming of the Constitution. Was this division a good move for the Colonies to make? Would the country be the same today if these divisions had not been made? Were they for the better? or for the worse?
Jefferson, on the topic of parties, says:
"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests. In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them, therefore, liberals and serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, whigs and tories, republicans and federalists, aristocrats and democrats, or by whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue the same object. The last appellation of aristocrats and democrats is the true one expressing the essence of all." -Thomas Jefferson
Here, Jefferson promotes the Republic party in a subtle way, that gives his view on both sides. It's obvious he is siding with the Republicans, due to his sarcastic, demeaning views of the Federalists.

The Boston Massacre

The Boston Massacre was a monumental tragedy in American history. 5 civilians who were residents of the 13 Colonies were killed, and several others injured, at the hands of the British. The event began on King Street in the early evening of March 5, in front of Private Hugh White outside the Custom House. An apprentice named Edward Gerrish called out to a British officer that the officer had not paid the bill of Gerrish's master. The officer had infact settled his account and ignored the insult. Gerrish departed, but returned a coupleof hours later with companions. He continued his complaints, and the civilians began throwing rocks at Goldfinch. Gerrish also exchanged insults with Private White, who left his post, challenged the boy, and then struck him on the side of the head with a musket. One of his companions began to argue with White. This attracted a larger crowd. The crowd grew larger and larger, until finally, the British had dispacthed the 29th Regiment of Foot to come armed to the scene to protect White.

The crowd started to grow, to about 300-400 people. The crowd continued to throw snow balls and rocks at them, and taunting them by saying "Fire!" However, the British had listened, and fired into the crowd.

The Americans suffered a great loss of unity, as this powerful attack of the British had downed their spirits. However, was this an act of American courage? or British superiority? Were the colonists trying to be heros? Was there any other way to stop this protest other than firing into the crowd?

John Adams had retold the event on the third anniversary:

"I. . .devoted myself to endless labour and Anxiety if not to infamy and death, and that for nothing, except, what indeed was and ought to be all in all, sense of duty. In the Evening I expressed to Mrs. Adams all my Apprehensions: That excellent Lady, who has always encouraged me, burst into a flood of Tears, but said she was very sensible of all the Danger to her and to our Children as well as to me, but she thought I had done as I ought, she was very willing to share in all that was to come and place her trust in Providence.

"Before or after the Tryal, Preston sent me ten Guineas and at the Tryal of the Soldiers afterwards Eight Guineas more, which were. . .all the pecuniary Reward I ever had for fourteen or fifteen days labour, in the most exhausting and fatiguing Causes I ever tried: for hazarding a Popularity very general and very hardly earned: and for incurring a Clamour and popular Suspicions and prejudices, which are not yet worn out and never will be forgotten as long as History of this Period is read...It was immediately bruited abroad that I had engaged for Preston and the Soldiers, and occasioned a great clamour....

"The Part I took in Defence of Cptn. Preston and the Soldiers, procured me Anxiety, and Obloquy enough. It was, however, one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested Actions of my whole Life, and one of the best Pieces of Service I ever rendered my Country. Judgment of Death against those Soldiers would have been as foul a Stain upon this Country as the Executions of the Quakers or Witches, anciently. As the Evidence was, the Verdict of the Jury was exactly right.

"This however is no Reason why the Town should not call the Action of that Night a Massacre, nor is it any Argument in favour of the Governor or Minister, who caused them to be sent here. But it is the strongest Proofs of the Danger of Standing Armies."

-Adams, John: Diary and Autobiography of John Adams.

Literature

Literature during the Enlightenment greatly increased, not only the reading of religious texts, but also the science and mathematical texts of the time. People had started to decrease their reading of religious texts, and had moved onto the science and logic books. They had started reading the books of Montesquieu, Descartes, Pascal, Voltaire, Diderot, and other philosophers. The books on art had greatly increased as well. However, this constant want of these books had caused many books to be printed abroad and smuggled back into the country for "under-the-cloak" sale. Books were also starting to be written in different languages, that somewhat showed a sign that the country was moving towards racial tolerance. This book trade became very illegal, as books were starting to contain inappropriate and profane content. These books caused women to use their sexual charms to gain power over the weak rulers and high officials, which corrupted the process of the government. The population of readers had greatly increased, increasing the educated public in France, which is what some scholars called the reading revolution. The old times had sacred texts, full of authority, inspring reverence and teaching earthly duty and obedience to God. Reading used to be the father slowly reading the text aloud and the audience savored each word. However, now, reading became individual and silent. Do you think that this caused a sort of decline in sociality and unity? Do you think the profane books were the actual cause of the corrupt government? Did the books contribute to the knowledge of the women in their salons? Was the reading revolution a positive or a negative?