Question:
Why is race a central focus for the Haitian Revolution, and what purpose does it serve?

Answer:
One main reason why race is a central focus for the revolution is because European colonists had ingrained within their colonies the idea that race defines a person’s worth. This became especially relevant to Haiti, for an island whose population primarily consists of enslaved African descendants. This becomes even more clear when it is considered that the French “Code Noir” was a law regarding slavery that was named after a racial feature, meaning the two were virtually interchangeable.

Race served two main purposes in the revolution: rallying all black people behind the idea that their race is being liberated (not just slaves), and to direct hostilities towards white oppressors (as can be seen in the account on pages 91-95). In rallying fellow blacks to belittle whites, they were able to essentially turn the revolution into an equal playing ground for both races, rather than blacks being at a social disadvantage.

Question: What do the reactions to the Haitian Revolution tell us in regards to the cause of the revolution?  What do these reactions tell us about Haitian society at the time in regards to race relations?

Answer: The primary sources give us a wide variety of opinions towards what was happening in Haiti at the time.  Antoine Dalmas’ reaction, seen in his source on page 77), gives us a colonist’s perspective on the events.  Dalmas makes an effort to portray the slaves as barbaric and their revolution lacking a just cause.  An example of this is his reaction to the ritual before the revolution was to be carried out which involved the drinking of pig’s blood (78).  Dalmas’ account can be seen as attempting to portray the revolution as something done simply out of desire for bloodshed, with his multitude examples of atrocities being committed.  By attempting to portray these slaves seeking freedom from their life of servitude, we see a part of colonialist society that demonizes the slaves and finds their desire for freedom as unnecessary and excessive.  This opinion is also seen in Olympe De Gouges’ primary source.

Gouges’ reaction to the revolution is similar to Dalmas’ as she directly condemned the actions of the slaves and people of color.  Her reaction shows that she views the violent acts as unnecessary despite the horrible conditions met by the slaves (97).  Gouges, unlike Dalmas, represents a mainland French perspective of the revolution, showing that those in France were trying to portray the Haitian Revolution as one done out of desire for violence.  This was not the only opinion, though, as Thomas Clarkson’s account shifts the cause of revolution to slavery itself.

Clarkson’s reaction to the revolution points to the slave trade “as the real cause of all West Indian Insurrections”(102).  Clarkson’s opinion differs heavily from Gouges and Dalmas because it attempts to justify the revolution, stating that the cruelty of slavery is the primary cause of the violence and that this violence is to be expected (102). This opinion reflects part of colonial society that condemned slavery and understood the reasoning behind the Haitain Revolution.

What was the role of women in the revolution?

The role of women during the revolution was not one of the main topics in the primary sources. Women were, of course, a part of the revolution as much as men were, but it was not shown as important as the men of the revolution. However, one primary source was solely on the women Olympe De Gouges, a playwright and “intellectual force before the French revolution. She is a huge advocate for abolition and was executed for her politics and activism. The ” Preface to The Slavery of the Blacks” was a play she wrote and highlighted the struggles of slaves and how slavery is cruel and inhumane.

Question: How did racial stereotypes influence the treatment of slaves and ex-slaves during and after the Haitian Revolution?

Answer:

During the Haitian Revolution, some colonists used the violent act insurrectionists committed as an excuse to marginalize black and mulatto people. For example, Antoine Dalmas was a colonist who wrote a detailed account of the slave uprising in Saint-Domingue. In his account, Dalmas continually describes the rebelling slaves as “pitiless”. While it is true that the Haitian Revolution was an incredibly violent revolt, Dalmas lets his prejudice black and mix-raced people influence his narrative. “It is natural that a caste this ignorant and stupid would begin the most horrible attacks with the superstitious rites of an absurd and bloodthirsty religion.” Instead of being surprised by the violence committed by the slaves, Dalmas implies that the events of the Revolution have merely affirmed his preexisting notions regarding a people he considered moral inferiors. Furthermore, Dalmas does not mention the evils of slavery or any crimes committed by the French or other Europeans.

Unfortunately, Dalmas was not alone in his assumption. The plantation owner Pierre Mossut described the insurrectionists as “horde of assassins” and also as “fanatics” in a letter to the Marquis de Gallifet, his employer. He too does not discuss anything he may have done to provoke the rebellion.

On the other hand, many colonists used the claim that non-white people were lazy to argue against emancipation. They claimed that if the enslaved population was freed, they would no longer have workers to sustain the colonial economy. To avoid this issue, some Europeans who did oppose slavery in the New World advocated for laws forcing former slaves to continue working for their colonial masters. For example, Léger Félicité Sonthonax argued in favor of immediate emancipation and total equality based on race except that he believed former slaves should continue in their previous positions but should receive compensation. Étienne Polverel took the idea further, adopting a condescending tone to shame any slave who should wish to work less than six days a week. Polverel also believed that women should receive less pay than men for the same work-hours, as he believed that women were inherently weaker and could not produce the same economic benefits necessary to sustain the economy.