Jean Laffite on the Insurrection in Haiti

Add caption Toussaint L'Ouverture from the Wikipedia

What did Jean Laffite think about the insurrection that led to the formation of Haiti? Here is an excerpt from the Journal of Jean Laffite that deals with this issue.

He writes: "Toussaint L'Ouverture annd Henri Christophe were the two educated blacks who directed and agitated the insurrection for the absolute independence of the black negroes of the eastern part of Santo Domingo, choosing an Indian name, 'Haiti' which is the current name of the Republic."

"The two principal black leaders had an excellent education and had without a doubt the right to liberty and independence because France was strangled on all sides by the British dragon and the despotic crown of Spain."

"Mr. Bonaparte thought that these slaves of Santo Domingo had the the right to establish a small autonomous republic, but he resented greatly that a nation, no matter which, would give contraband munitions of war and firearms into the hands of  illiterates for independence in an effort to cause insurrection [reurrections?-sic]."

There is a legitimate cause to criticize this attitude as attributed by Jean Laffite to Napoleon, as there is no reason to assume that only literate men have the right to freedom. However, what Jean Laffite probably meant was that he was in favor of freeing the slaves, but he was against the general carnage that ensued when the literate and civilized leaders lost control of their followers.

Here is an excerpt from Theodosia and the Pirates: The Battle Against Britain that deals with this question:

From "Theodosia and the Pirates: The Battle Against Britain"

It is perhaps in the 19th century when the idea of education as a cure-all was introduced. It is the same idea that is attributed to Robespierre by today's progressives on Facebook memes, But it is not education that is lacking when people turn to general carnage as a way to air their grievances: it is common decency. Indigenous tribes, ordinary people with limited means and many other illiterates have common decency and behave well toward others even when they are unhappy about something. It is slavery that robs people of the experience of bearing arms and knowing how to restrain themselves in their use. Freemen are so accustomed to being armed that the common decency that comes with this responsibility is second nature. One of the dangers that accompanies the loss of second amendment rights in the United States today is that too few people have been trained in gun safety or the moral imperatives of proper firearm use.

The Biblical adage "a servant when he reigneth" is what applies here. Freedom is something you have to grow into. It is dangerous to give it to a whole mass of people all at once, however well-educated they are, when they have not yet learned self-restraint. Neither poverty nor illiteracy is the problem. It just takes time and proper upbringing to master self-control.

The Road to Freedom

Education is the road to freedom. It must be true, because Robespierre said so.

Well, I'm not actually sure that he did say that, but it was in a prominent meme I saw yesterday. Education certainly is the key to reshaping the world. So is propaganda. And whoever controls the teaching of history to today's young is bound to have a hand in tomorrow's outlook.

Here's what I found that Robespierre did actually say:

D’abord je remarque avec peine que jusqu’à 6 ans l’enfant échappe à la vigilance du législateur & que cette portion importante de la vie reste abandonnée aux préjugés subsistants & à la merci des vieilles erreurs. A 6 ans, la loi commence à exercer son influence : mais cette influence n’est que partielle, momentanée ; & par la nature même des choses elle ne peut agir que sur le moindre nombre des individus qui composent la nation.

La plus grave inégalité va s’établir à raison des diverses facultés des parents : & ici les personnes aisées, c’est-à-dire le plus petit nombre, ont tout l’avantage.      

Quiconque peut se passer du travail de son enfant pour le nourrir a la facilité de le tenir aux écoles tous les jours & plusieurs heures chaque jour. Mais quant à la classe indigente, comment fera-telle  ? Cet enfant pauvre, vous lui offrez bien l’instruction ; mais avant, il lui faut du pain. Son père laborieux s’en prive d’un morceau pour le lui donner ; mais il faut que l’enfant gagne l’autre. Son temps est enchaîné au travail, car au travail est enchaînée la subsistance.

Après avoir passé aux champs une journée pénible, voulez-vous que, pour repos, il s’en aille à l’école, éloignée peut-être d’une demi-lieue de son domicile ? Vainement vous établiriez une loi coercitive contre le père ; celui-ci ne saurait se passer journellement du travail d’un enfant qui, à 8, 9 & 10 ans, gagne déjà quelque chose. Un petit nombre d’heures par semaine, voilà tout ce qu’il peut sacrifier. Ainsi, l’établissement des écoles, telles qu’on les propose, ne sera, à proprement parler, bien profitable qu’au petit nombre de citoyens...

Clearly, in order to stamp out all inequality, you need to minimize the role of parents. How can the legislator deal with unequal home environments even before the child goes to school? Sound familiar? Who else says that? To translate just the very last part: "How can we establish a coercive law against the father? How can you deprive him of the work which a child of eight, nine or ten years old already earns from? So the establishment of schools will not, properly speaking, be profitable except for a small number of citizens."

Unless? Unless what?

Art. I. Tous les enfants seront élevés aux dépens de la République, depuis l’âge de cinq ans jusqu’à douze pour les garçons, & depuis cinq ans jusqu’à onze pour les filles.

II. L’éducation nationale sera égale pour tous ; tous recevront même nourriture, mêmes vêtements, même instruction, mêmes soins.

III. L’éducation nationale étant la dette de la République envers tous, tous les enfants ont droit de la recevoir, & les parents ne pourront se soustraire à l’obligation de les faire jouir de ses avantages. [...]

Well, we have such a coercive law in effect now establishing mandatory education, even beyond the ages that Robespierre envisioned. And I think we all know how parents are deprived of the right to decide whether their children work for their keep or go to school. Now the question is: what shall we teach in our schools?

What if you started teaching American history with Lincoln? And what if you taught, not what Lincoln did as a president, but instead began the whole story on the eve of his assassination? And suppose you focused on the details of everything that happened that day, but never explained any of the context?

This is education today in America. Students learn a lot of things, but they are not allowed to see the big picture.  And then later we get de-contextualized quotations from the likes of Robespierre, and it's okay, as long as you don't label anyone for what they did or what they believed in or what cause they espoused or served.

I made a new meme today.

I think this would make an excellent essay topic for a high school history class. Maybe someone should offer a prize for the best answer. But I don't think that could happen in the public schools. How would the public profit from such an endeavor? What would Robespierre think about that?