Best monarch or head of state to kill off early for a more prosperous future

[Silver01]

You say slavery would have probably ended within two generations. But who’s to say it would have ended? The system wasn’t going to just end on its own. There was no incentive for it to end. The plantation system was the bedrock of colonial life. Rich whites and rich mixed race earned vast fortunes owning plantations, poor whites and poor mixed race worked as straw bosses and foremen. Slavery made millions for mainland France so the government in Paris was content. Everyone in a position to do anything about slavery benefits from its continuation, so why would they do anything to stop it? Without the revolution, without the slaves taking freedom for themselves, what pressure is there to abolish slavery?

As early as 1780s the British public were already campaigning to get rid of the slave trade during the Haitian revolution debates in parliament about it raged even in 1792 there were 400k petitions against the slave trade, the act of 1807 was a result of the abolitionist side winning over, there is also that for the brits, competition and other factors led to diminishing returns of the African slave trade, simply I do not see Haiti failing, erasing all of the other factors that first led to the slave trade being banned , also the attack on the French slave trade drew an even broader base of support than the campaign to end Britain's own slave trade

also again for the brits in the 1820s Caribbean sugar industry went into terminal decline, and thus parliament no longer felt they needed to protect the economic interests of them, so Unless the British gain Haiti which is a topic I will get in to the trade still gets abolished similar to the otl as the factors were already there before Haiti and the the brits were the ones who pushed for the congress abolition of the trade in the congress.

How have the French retained Saint Domingue throughout the Napoleonic Wars in this scenario? A big reason they were able to hold on to it for so long IOTL was the tens of thousands of ex-slave soldiers coming down out of the northern plains to fight for them. Without these reinforcements I don’t see the meagre French garrison (6,000 IIRC but don’t quote me on that) holding out against the British for very long.

I except the victors to return the island the peace treaty was not harsh to France so yes the french with haiti would be more resistant to end slavery but as I mentioned in my other comment with the congress of Vienna opinion against slavery , the reason why i think the French even with Haiti would last two generations is pressure from outside

while I mentioned before how the brits abolished slavery because it was not profitable anymore some have challenged this and said it was very much profitable, despite the 1820s prices fell, but public opinion just really turned against it

Now If we assume that such price failures also occurred in France as they had occurred in Spain so unless like Puerto rico who shifted I think Haiti importance to the french economy declines in the 1820s with it also declines the importance of keeping slavery

 

[Ana Luciana II]

Yeah!
My idea for a POD was having Bondye, the haitian creator deity who's seen in a mostly deistic fashion(unconcerned with human affairs and stuff) take a page of Exodus and decide that his people must be freed at all cost much like the biblical hebrews were freed from Egypt
With Louverture as a Moses-figure, a vèvè serving as equivalent of the chi-rho for the haitian flag and all of the haitian symbols, rituals and religious tradition working to a tee, allowing even those who never heard of him to free themselves while the British Empire is replaced as the main world power as their magic act as a more effective alternative to the Industrial Revolution.

I’m getting big magical realism vibes. Honestly it sounds like it would be great fun, I’d be interested to see how the major Christian powers reacted to the development of a major Voudou-ist world power.

That sounds pretty cool!
Would it be a more passive story where the soldier sees the horror what happened since they're just one person or would they be a very knowledgeable soldier providing them with vital intel?

He’d help them develop their arms industry, help equip them with breech-loaders, inform them of future events. I have a scene planned where he shows Touissant a copy of The Black Jacobins…

 

[Aluma]

He’d help them develop their arms industry, help equip them with breech-loaders, inform them of future events. I have a scene planned where he shows Touissant a copy of The Black Jacobins…

Its kinda ironic how we met when you were making your Draka TL considering what we're discussing now is the polar opposite of it x3
But I welcome that, I love your ideas

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Yeah!
My idea for a POD was having Bondye, the haitian creator deity who's seen in a mostly deistic fashion(unconcerned with human affairs and stuff) take a page of Exodus and decide that his people must be freed at all cost much like the biblical hebrews were freed from Egypt
With Louverture as a Moses-figure, a vèvè serving as equivalent of the chi-rho for the haitian flag and all of the haitian symbols, rituals and religious tradition working to a tee, allowing even those who never heard of him to free themselves while the British Empire is replaced as the main world power as their magic act as a more effective alternative to the industrial revolution

That sounds pretty cool!
Would it be a more passive story where the soldier sees the horror what happened since they're just one person or would they be a very knowledgeable soldier providing them with vital intel?

It is, they're a extremely underrated country

At least spunds better than the proposal "Papa Doc's Haití is sent back to the age of Haitian Revolution" in the sense of is likely that not simoly ends in a blooodbath...

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Its kinda ironic how we met when you were making your Draka TL considering what we're discussing now is the polar opposite of it x3
But I welcome that, I love your ideas

What TL is this

 

[Aluma]

At least spunds better than the proposal "Papa Doc's Haití is sent back to the age of Haitian Revolution" in the sense of is likely that not simoly ends in a blooodbath...

Thats just evil
And you know ita fucked up when I am saying it

What TL is this

Snakedance
Currently not on the site since Anna didnt feel confortable with it
Still think she did a wonderful job all things considered

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Thats just evil
And you know ita fucked up when I am saying it

Snakedance
Currently not on the site since Anna didnt feel confortable with it
Still think she did a wonderful job all things considered

Fortunarely was only a discussion thread but still the evilness of that ASB was just evident.

Sorry for this.

 

[Silver01]

I think you can. Slaves did not have reliable access to international news, so aside from some in Louisiana, it's very doubtful that the average revolting slave would even know where Haiti is, much less know that a successful revolt happened there. As for the white reaction, the writings call back to Haiti, but those seem to be a retroactive justification for the fears sparked by Turner. If Haiti was crucial to the fears of the slaveowners, the crackdowns and the fervor would have happened in 1804, not 1831/1832.

It does not matter I said its debatable wheter or not Nat was inspired by Haiti but to the southerners of the time he was that the point and hence why you can not divorce them I quoted a source quoting someone who compares Nat to Dessalines, also laws occurred prior to did occur prior to Nat, heck Jefferson and the Nonrecognition of Haiti goes in to more detail in page how haiti caused the moral view 26

So yes I disagree with your point that Nat Turner that evolved the slavery argument from one of necessity and economics to being a positive good.
that began with Haiti not in 1830s

And why wouldn't a big revolt occur in the future? The whole slavery argument was radicalizing fast in the antebellum era as slaveowners developed moral arguments to preserve slavery, turning an economic debate into one of morality. Besides, the white genocide theory was a small part of the moral arguments for slavery. The biggest argument was the idea that slavery was a positive good for the blacks, which were far more numerous in publication.

An idea that was birth after Haiti even also poor southern whites fought in the civil war yes for economic reasons but White genocide was a great reason for the common soldier to fight for the confederacy, so yes eliminating white genocide theory or significantly reducing it, already has impact on how the general population see slavery

since a world were abolition doesn't mean we all get killed the south views prior, during and after the civil war are also very different, I can argue in one of the better cases the lost cause myth has fewer support.

see 4:24

 

[Ana Luciana II]

What TL is this

Thats just evil
And you know ita fucked up when I am saying it

Snakedance
Currently not on the site since Anna didnt feel confortable with it
Still think she did a wonderful job all things considered

Listen we don’t talk about Snakedance…

At least spunds better than the proposal "Papa Doc's Haití is sent back to the age of Haitian Revolution" in the sense of is likely that not simoly ends in a blooodbath...

I’m sorry what? Whats even the point of that other than killing lots of Haitians?
Apropos of nothing it’s irritating that every time there’s a Haiti thread we have people going “Well you see Haiti was always doomed and always will be!” It’s such a reductive way to look at history.

 

[Mitridates the Great]

Listen we don’t about Snakedance…

I’m sorry what? Whats even the point of that other than killing lots of Haitians?
Apropos of nothing it’s irritating that every time there’s a Haiti thread we have people going “Well you see Haiti was always doomed and always will be!” It’s such a reductive way to look at history.

Why do you think I said it was a bad discussion? It's one I read on the ASB thread and basically people concluded that Haiti would become the entire Caribbean under Papa Doc... well you can imagine.

 

[dcharles]

I generally have a pretty strong stomach when it comes to reading about atrocities. But the things the French did to the slaves in Haiti have given me nightmares. I recall, one of the French planter’s favoured methods for dealing with runaway slaves was forcing explosives inside the chest and rectum and blowing the slave apart. I don’t mean to be vulgar but you can understand (though not excuse) why Dessalines did what he did.

It's so interesting to me that, when you think of the bloodthirsty Frenchie trope, literature and historical memory concentrates on leftist characters like Madame Defarge and Robespierre. The horrors of the Ancien Regime and even Napoleon are almost elided completely.

That the French depredations on the black people in the Caribbean were looked upon with such disgust by their contemporaries, and are largely forgotten today is amazing. It's very indicative, I think, of the overall project of ideologically driven racist historiography that pervaded in the 19th and 20th century academy.

 

[Ana Luciana II]

It's so interesting to me that, when you think of the bloodthirsty Frenchie trope, literature and historical memory concentrates on leftist characters like Madame Defarge and Robespierre. The horrors of the Ancien Regime and even Napoleon are almost elided completely.

That the French depredations on the black people on the Caribbean were looked upon with such disgust by their contemporaries, and are largely forgotten today is amazing. It's very indicative, I think, of the overall project of ideologically driven racist historiography that pervaded in the 19th and 20th century academy.

Indeed, if you were a Haitian, the Jacobins were actually fairly enlightened colonial masters. It was Robespierre that lead the charge on the Law of February 4th after all.
I think it’s very telling that when I talk to people about the Haitian Revolution all people seem to know about it is that several thousand white people were massacred.
As you say - in white supremacist historiography white pain is remarkable whilst black pain is regarded as a footnote. Because Napoleon’s Haitian victims were black and mixed race living on the colonial periphery they are not treated with the same reverence as the white victims of the terror on the French mainland.

 

[Hydra1234]

So yes I disagree with your point that Nat Turner that evolved the slavery argument from one of necessity and economics to being a positive good.
that began with Haiti not in 1830s

I never said that. When I brought up Nat Turner, I was just comparing the impact of his revolt to the contemporary response to Haiti, not stating that his revolt was the turning point of American proslavery thought. The positive good argument predates Turner by about a decade, but postdates Haiti by 15-20 years. Again, if Haiti was all-important, why did it take so long after the Haitian Revolution for the south to radicalize? And Taylor was not arguing that slavery was a "positive good." He even admitted that he disapproved of slavery in other writings.

Also, Jefferson's concern regarding slave rebellions goes back as early as his Notes on Virginia, which was written as early as 1781. Again, slave revolts were a thing prior to Haiti.

since a world were abolition doesn't mean we all get killed the south views prior, during and after the civil war are also very different, I can argue in one of the better cases the lost cause myth has fewer support.

The main driver of anti-abolitionism was not the idea that white people would be exterminated once abolition came to effect, it was the threat that abolition would end the southern aristocracy's means of getting rich. Stephens does not argue that abolition would lead to extermination in the Cornerstone Speech: he argues it would tear down the system and the Southern way of life.

The Lost Cause (in most iterations) also does not push the idea that blacks were going to genocide the whites. In fact, it deflects away from the topic of slavery entirely to focus on "state's rights," battlefield prowess, and "Southern chivalry."

 

[Silver01]

I never said that. When I brought up Nat Turner, I was just comparing the impact of his revolt to the contemporary response to Haiti, not stating that his revolt was the turning point of American proslavery thought.

I jut quoted what you said but yeah nat did cause big changes but as I said we cant divorce that from Haiti.

The positive good argument predates Turner by about a decade, but postdates Haiti by 15-20 years. Again, if Haiti was all-important, why did it take so long after the Haitian Revolution for the south to radicalize? And Taylor was not arguing that slavery was a "positive good." He even admitted that he disapproved of slavery in other writings.

Jonh Taylor disliked slavery but he though it was necessary like Lee, he saw it as a necessary evil that would lead to a good outcome, heck he was worse than lee because lee though the blacks would become "civilized""" in the future taylorthought blacks incapable of liberty. to quote the man "slaves are docile, useful and happy.
so yes saying he saw slavery was a positive good is accurate due his views also Taylor was among the first to use Haiti as an example of if we free them they will genocide us because and explicitly mentioned due to Haiti, if we want to debunk this notion we just have to find a document prior to the Haitian revolution were the south has fear that bloodshed and white genocide was to occur before Haiti I have not found anything of the sort.

The main driver of anti-abolitionism was not the idea that white people would be exterminated once abolition came to effect, it was the threat that abolition would end the southern aristocracy's means of getting rich. Stephens does not argue that abolition would lead to extermination in the Cornerstone Speech: he argues it would tear down the system and the Southern way of life.

you did not see the video? the lost cause argument was that only the slave masters ie the rich cared for slavery not the typical poor confederate soldier yet
Atun-Shei Films correctly points out that the poor did care not only for economical reasons but to them emancipation did mean white genocide so they saw it as their best interest to keep slavery.

The Lost Cause (in most iterations) also does not push the idea that blacks were going to genocide the whites. In fact, it deflects away from the topic of slavery entirely to focus on "state's rights," battlefield prowess, and "Southern chivalry."

Yes they did quite a lot in fact birth of nation you know that racist movie and Wilson a scholar, shows this exactly that and the idea that reconstruction was there to punish the south they let go the ""evil blacks""" and their """ animalistic nature""" that went on a crime and killing to take revenge against their former slave masters, in other words people actually believed back in the late 19th and early 20th century that Haiti 2.0 did not occur because the clan stopped it, this is one of the most popular ideas of the lost cause ideology at the time and the believe that reconstruction was Punitive still exist in modern lost causers.

Simply put the idea that emancipation meant genodice had a great impact with out it IMO things would be very different

 

[Mikestone8]

Czar Alexander's mercurial nature and noble influence on him meant he was only seeing the poor, poor nobles who couldn't have chocolate for their dessert and he thought that was more important than actually seeing the numbers.

For him it probably was.

The poor peasants weren't in a position to depose and murder him, but the nobles were - as his father and grandfather could have testified.

 

[Hydra1234]

I jut quoted what you said but yeah nat did cause big changes but as I said we cant divorce that from Haiti.

Show me where I said that Nat Turner was the pivotal point in US slavery rhetoric. I just said that more was done in response to Turner than in response to Haiti, not that Turner was the most important thing to happen in proslavery thought.

Jonh Taylor disliked slavery but he though it was necessary like Lee, he saw it as a necessary evil that would lead to a good outcome, heck he was worse than lee because lee though the blacks would become "civilized""" in the future taylorthought blacks incapable of liberty. to quote the man "slaves are docile, useful and happy.
so yes saying he saw slavery was a positive good is accurate due his views also Taylor was among the first to use Haiti as an example of if we free them they will genocide us because and explicitly mentioned due to Haiti, if we want to debunk this notion we just have to find a document prior to the Haitian revolution were the south has fear that bloodshed and white genocide was to occur before Haiti I have not found anything of the sort.

Notes on the State of Virginia, written in 1781, revised in 1782, page 136 by Thomas Jefferson:

Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions, which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.

And Jefferson's a moderate here, who actually argues for some sort of abolition. In the subsequent pages, Jefferson also descibes how blacks lack forethought, how they are happier and more transient than whites, and makes repeated comparisons to animals. Sound familiar?

you did not see the video? the lost cause argument was that only the slave masters ie the rich cared for slavery not the typical poor confederate soldier yet
Atun-Shei Films correctly points out that the poor did care not only for economical reasons but to them emancipation did mean white genocide so they saw it as their best interest to keep slavery.

Well first, the aristocracy was guiding the view of the poor whites through a whole variety of means (speeches, newspapers, literature, etc.). All sorts of hierarchical societies did the same thing. Secondly, the interest of the poor whites was mainly in "mudsill theory," not fears of genocide. If racial equality occurs, then the poor whites are suddenly on that bottom rung, so they do have an economic incentive.
Plus, non-slavery beliefs were used by the aristocracy to convince poor whites to fight. This soldier fought for God, his state, and his comrades, with not much mention of slavery or fears of extermination in his letters: https://cwnc.omeka.chass.ncsu.edu/exhibits/show/hoyle/religiousmotivation.

Yes they did quite a lot in fact birth of nation you know that racist movie and Wilson a scholar, shows this exactly that and the idea that reconstruction was there to punish the south they let go the ""evil blacks""" and their """ animalistic nature""" that went on a crime and killing to take revenge against their former slave masters, in other words people actually believed back in the late 19th and early 20th century that Haiti 2.0 did not occur because the clan stopped it, this is one of the most popular ideas of the lost cause ideology at the time and the believe that reconstruction was Punitive still exist in modern lost causers.

Except for the part where y'know, the blacks don't genocide the whites in Birth of a Nation. The blacks do a lot of things in the movie, but it's more random barbarity (portraying the black as savage) than targeted extermination. In fact, the Radical Republicans are more vindictive than the blacks in the film, with Silas Lynch's corruption originating from the Stonemans. Also note how slavery is relegated to background during during the first act. If the Lost Cause really did believe slavery was this good preventing a Haiti-esque situation, why was slavery effectively omitted from the film?

 

[Silver01]

Show me where I said that Nat Turner was the pivotal point in US slavery rhetoric. I just said that more was done in response to Turner than in response to Haiti, not that Turner was the most important thing to happen in proslavery thought.

I just quoted your words If misuderstood the meaning I do apologize

Notes on the State of Virginia, written in 1781, revised in 1782, page 136 by Thomas

Fair enough but i will not that Jefferson seem to stat the "very real' racial differences will lead to disagreement to the point that violence will occur and end in extermination while very similar but the post Haiti writings have more of fear of white genocide as reprisals

And Jefferson's a moderate here, who actually argues for some sort of abolition. In the subsequent pages, Jefferson also descibes how blacks lack forethought, how they are happier and more transient than whites, and makes repeated comparisons to animals. Sound familiar?

Yes but this was not anything new and again it does not sound like later authors has a fear of massive reprisal leading to genocide so while I do concede the point that freeing the blacks in the eyes of some ( I cant say how popular this was) would lead to the a race war, the idea that freeing them and them turning violent to kill the whites for slavery still seems like a post Haiti thing since that what did occur.

in fact the same book I quoted says white fragility over slave revolts really start to pick up after the Louisiana purchase especially during the debate of Missouri

Except for the part where y'know, the blacks don't genocide the whites in Birth of a Nation.

Because the clan stops them from getting to the point that the whole point of wilson quote and the Ideology of the time

The blacks do a lot of things in the movie, but it's more random barbarity (portraying the black as savage) than targeted extermination.

Again this was the point of the believe of the time that letting the blacks go they would go commit crimes and later kill them all.

In fact, the Radical Republicans are more vindictive than the blacks in the film, with Silas Lynch's corruption originating from the Stonemans. Also note how slavery is relegated to background during during the first act. If the Lost Cause really did believe slavery was this good preventing a Haiti-esque situation, why was slavery effectively omitted from the film?

If the Lost Cause really did believe slavery was this good preventing a Haiti-esque situation, why was slavery effectively omitted from the film?

yeah this was common genodice was to be the outcome but many even during the civil war said the ex slaves would run and do anarchy , "'your own countrymen and race' against the 'murder and arson, hanging and stealing' that were sure to accompany the 'liberation of the half-civilized cannibal.'"(p. 15 -- Pvt. Joseph Bruckmuller.) I dont have to say that one gus is an example of this
Wilson is quoted as the north sending in the "savages" to punish the south and as mentioned the Klan prevented the blacks from having the power and thus saving the south
even in the elections of 1900 of charlotte you have people saying that by keeping Jim crow they prevented a race war here is one from 1873 were again they fear that there all going to be killed

And southers are still delusional that they are fighting to save their civilization
View attachment 853021

This is what birth of a nation as the blacks were using their power and the republicans allowed it to punish the south.

So pretty much that the idea of white genocide was popular even after the civil war and yes lost cause ideology at the time say the redeemers saved the south from the rule anarchy and genocide that was happening or going to occur under the rule of the blacks, who wanted revenge for slavery against their "benevolent" masters.

 

[Silver01]

then the poor whites are suddenly on that bottom rung, so they do have an economic incentive.

i never denied the economic aspect but it would be very dishonest to say fears of genocide did not motivate them as well for the actually believed that emancipation would bring the collapse of their civilization even after the civil war you see it in the 1873 event that I quoted, you also see it in writings actually say they will all be exterminated as mentioned even after the war

Now with all of this can we really say the actions of Haiti did not influence the southern states when time and time again they mention their fears of ending up like it? its ignored now but if one digs up one can find the sources the south was terrified of Haiti nay paranoid of it the revolution caused a fear of them getting killed way beyond the initial rebellion even beyond the civil war.

 

[Tocomocho]

Carlos II of Spain, if only because an earlier death of him would avoid the disastrous War of the Spanish Succession. Also, everyone expected him to die in his childhood, instead, he baffled all of Christendom, keeping surviving all the ailments and illness he had.
Bonus points if he dies in 1668, just after the Gremonville Treaty was signed, dividing the Spanish Empire between Austria and Spain, making things interesting on its own.

View attachment 842179

And this benefits Spain how? Milan might be gone in the next war and Sardinia would not make for the loss of Navarre and the Philippines in one million years.

If anything the reign of Charles II is underrated: the economy improved, the population decline reversed, territorial losses were minimal despite the number of lost wars. It was probably a blessing that the king was too stupid to intervene and screw up things like the previous not-as-stupid kings had done.

It may qualify as a best case for France, though.

If we're killing off a head of state for Spain, Ferdinand VII would have to be the obvious choice by far, as long as it happens before he tries to make his daughter heir. His brother Carlos might be incredibly reactionary and a creep who married two of his nieces, but at least he's not mind-bogglingly incompetent.

I disagree. Making his daughter the heir was the best thing he did in his life. It's just that like everything else he did in life, it resulted in thousands of deaths, destruction, and misery.

Another would be Juan Carlos I during 1980's. Even better if putchers accidentally kills him. He would get now better reputation and potentially not such corrupt Spanish royal family and perhaps monarchy would be more popular.

You would save the guy's personal reputation at the cost of throwing the country in chaos in a critical period. The thread is not about that.

Well on the topic of spanish monarchs

King Ferdinand II of Aragon

Heck I still want to write a TL on that very subject

And you would be killing the guy about whom Philip II said "we owe everything to him".

To be fair, she was the product of an uncle-niece marriage, and married off at the age of sixteen to a man who was her double-first-cousin-and-double-first-cousin-once-removed. The deck was stacked against her.

Doesn't excuse her slippery slide into conservativism and authoritarianism in the 1860s. Liberals made her queen, yet her last prime minister was a Carlist.

 

[Sacer Bubonicus]

I disagree. Making his daughter the heir was the best thing he did in his life. It's just that like everything else he did in life, it resulted in thousands of deaths, destruction, and misery.

And what Spain got was two-and-a-half civil wars. Was that really a good thing, especially in this critical time when Spain was recovering from the reaming it took during the Napoleonic occupation and then the loss of the colonies?

If there was any chance of Spain industrializing and remaining even a second-rate European country in the 19th century, it went up in smoke after that.