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

[Aluma]

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

And happily so

 

[htgriffin]

I actually say for the leaders of Haiti to die and loose now this will sound controversial but based on Cody video had the revolution failed haiti would not have been as poor as plus slave masters in the americas are not paranoid over haiti and to add to the video it's likely the lost cause myth either never comes around or is less popular this is based on the idea that many confederates believed that a race war or what happened to Haiti would occur it never did so in part the myth comes from there to justify their failed doomsday prophecy and later like birth of a nation say it was becoming Haiti had the Dems not """" saved"""" the south

Imo you don't have that with out if Haitian revolution fails

wut?

an AH where the Haitian Revolution is dodged by a government in Paris supple enough to get Sonthonax and Louverture operating a coalition government of the Saint-Domingue Department rather than invading to reinstate slavery with the resultant blowback is worth contemplating even if a majority of the planters would go "Lalala we can't hear you!" when presented with an explicit radical emancipation tale going well. This does not seem to be the argument made.

Tax; as heretical as it sounds... if you want to spike the development of the Ottoman Beylik in NW Anatolia along with the eventual knock-on effects the man to kill is Mikhaēl Doukas Angelos Komnēnos Palaiologos. He not only insisted on reclaiming the money sink that was the old capital Constantinople, but more importantly led the noble revolt that fundamentally gutted the power structure that kept the Empire of Nicaea a major going concern against the Seljuks and its emerging successor states (along with mutilating the rightful monarch John Laskaris after murdering his handpicked regent). Stripped of wealth and troops, its populace neglected and alienated, the place proved a power vacuum for various Gazis to conquer where they did not outright co-opt. Then came the long life and screaming incompetence of Mike's successor Andronicus to kick over the house of cards he sacrificed Bithynia for.

 

[Silver01]

an AH where the Haitian Revolution is dodged by a government in Paris supple enough to get Sonthonax and Louverture operating a coalition government of the Saint-Domingue Department rather than invading to reinstate slavery with the resultant blowback is worth contemplating even if a majority of the planters would go "Lalala we can't hear you!" when presented with an explicit radical emancipation tale going well. This does not seem to be the argument made.

this I agree with no haiti revolution is very different from the Haitian revolution is crushed but my point was the violence and later actions of haiti made it a pariah state that had a big negative consequence to the souther slaves in the usa

 

[Ana Luciana II]

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.

You’ve responded to a question about whether slavery would end on its own in Haiti by talking about abolition in Britain. I fail to see how anything you’ve raised here is relevant to the question of whether slavery would eventually be abolished in Haiti if, as you have hypothesised, all the ex-slave leaders died and the Haitians were forced back into slavery.
Abolition in Great Britain does not equal abolition in France. Recall that the slaves were not freed in French Guadeloupe until 1848. And this was in the context of France having lost Haiti, it’s main colony with a slave based economy. Who’s to say it would not have occurred later if it did indeed occur? Slavery was not abolished in Spain’s Caribbean colonies until 1876. It was not abolished in Brazil until as late as 1888.
I never said the failure of the Haitian Revolution would lead to the failure of the British abolitionist movement. What I will argue is that the lack of the Haitian Revolution would lead to a very different British abolitionist movement. Economic depression in the sugar industry was a major factor in abolition. But the world economy would not be the same without the Haitian Revolution. The revolution caused a worldwide spike in sugar and coffee prices. A major economic argument among pro-slavery intellectuals in Britain behind retention of the slave trade was that the French would move in and take over the transatlantic slave trade in Britain abolished it. The liberation of the slaves and subsequent recognition of their freedom by the French government undercut this argument. You don’t have this without the Haitian Revolution. (SOURCE: https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/abolitionists_gallery_05.shtml#:~:text=Toussaint%20L'Ouverture,-Although%20he%20never&text=By%20eliminating%20France%20as%20a,France%2C%20would%20take%20it%20over.)
But economics was not the only factor. You bring up the public campaign against the slave trade in Britain, which began in the 1780s. You mention the 400K petition against slavery signed in 1792. Well this happened in the context of the Haitian Revolution! The revolution brought much needed attention to the abolitionist cause which had been facing setbacks in the summer of 1791 (as per James Walvin’s Slavery & British Society).
Slavery had survived economic crises in the past and could have done so again. Slave abolition was the result of a combination of many different pressures.
British abolitionist arguments were strengthened by the Haitian example. Think of it this way, if slaves, who you as a white person have always been told are stupid brutes incapable of governing themselves suddenly form their own republic with institutions and laws of their own, it’s going to have an effect.
It’s easy to forget what a cause celebre Haiti was among British liberals. Abolitionist papers such as the Annual Review hailed Touissant as a visionary and a great man. (As per Hazeersingh’s Black Spartacus) Major figures in the British establishment such as General Maitland (who commanded the expedition to Haiti) supported Touissant. William Wilberforce, the titan of British abolitionism, was friends with Haitian President Henri Christophe and helped the latter to establish schools which would educate a new generation of free Haitians.
Without Haiti I can easily see abolition being pushed back in Britain by at least a decade.
You also go on to say that the Congress of Vienna would oppose the slave trade. But why would it, in this ATL, without the effect of a major colonial war during which black ex-slaves fought on all sides?
Abolition, as it played out IOTL, was not an inevitability. And IMO in the ATL you propose it would be a longer and bloodier process.

 

[Silver01]

You’ve responded to a question about whether slavery would end on its own in Haiti by talking about abolition in Britain. I fail to see how anything you’ve raised here is relevant to the question of whether slavery would eventually be abolished in Haiti if, as you have hypothesised, all the ex-slave leaders died and the Haitians were forced back into slavery.

I made another comment to you about how the Brits would be the victors and they would but pressure

Abolition in Great Britain does not equal abolition in France. Recall that the slaves were not freed in French Guadeloupe until 1848. And this was in the context of France having lost Haiti, it’s main colony with a slave based economy. Who’s to say it would not have occurred later if it did indeed occur? Slavery was not abolished in Spain’s Caribbean colonies until 1876. It was not abolished in Brazil until as late as 1888.

As I mentioned in my other comment the 1820 sugar price drop was not only unique to the Brits itt happened to Spain and the dutch so much so that Cuba and Puerto Rico had to diversify

I never said the failure of the Haitian Revolution would lead to the failure of the British abolitionist movement. What I will argue is that the lack of the Haitian Revolution would lead to a very different British abolitionist movement. Economic depression in the sugar industry was a major factor in abolition. But the world economy would not be the same without the Haitian Revolution. The revolution caused a worldwide spike in sugar and coffee prices.

This very debatable the source I stated said it had said prices recovered and despite the Napoleonic wars and post war deflation loss of near monopoly status and more notice how Haiti is not mentioned here on the cause of the British sugar industry in 1820s nor have I found a source that it's also responsible for the Spanish one

A major economic argument among pro-slavery intellectuals in Britain behind retention of the slave trade was that the French would move in and take over the transatlantic slave trade in Britain abolished it. The liberation of the slaves and subsequent recognition of their freedom by the French government undercut this argument. You don’t have this without the Haitian Revolution. (SOURCE: https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/abolition/abolitionists_gallery_05.shtml#:~:text=Toussaint%20L'Ouverture,-Although%20he%20never&text=By%20eliminating%20France%20as%20a,France%2C%20would%20take%20it%20over.)

I myself cited the BBC yes you still have a fear that France could take over the trade but then again France is going to loose the Napoleonic wars

But economics was not the only factor. You bring up the public campaign against the slave trade in Britain, which began in the 1780s. You mention the 400K petition against slavery signed in 1792. Well this happened in the context of the Haitian Revolution! The revolution brought much needed attention to the abolitionist cause which had been facing setbacks in the summer of 1791 (as per James Walvin’s Slavery & British Society).

Did I ever say Haiti had no impact ? But no abolitionist movement was a thing before Haiti the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded in 1787 and also depending on the pod the same events would occur in the 1790s

Slavery had survived economic crises in the past and could have done so again. Slave abolition was the result of a combination of many different pressures.
British abolitionist arguments were strengthened by the Haitian example. Think of it this way, if slaves, who you as a white person have always been told are stupid brutes incapable of governing themselves suddenly form their own republic with institutions and laws of their own, it’s going to have an effect.

In a world were the french reconquer the islands and knowing them commit horrors against the locals how could that not have an effect on abolitionist ? Instead of the Haitians going to go massacre the french reprisals do you think those would not be used by the Brits to say and correctly so that slavery is evil .

Also while you mentioned the impact it had and positive one in 1790s you ignore the massacre of 1804 had a very negative impact not only on slavers masters of the southern who will use it as fear mongering to be against abolition even till reconstruction, but also the french like Journal des Débats blacks did not act for themselves had only been executors of crimes, others such as chazotte blame Wilberforce and other abolitionist

The massacre had to be ignored, condemned, downplayed or denied by the brits

It’s easy to forget what a cause celebre Haiti was among British liberals. Abolitionist papers such as the Annual Review hailed Touissant as a visionary and a great man. (As per Hazeersingh’s Black Spartacus) Major figures in the British establishment such as General Maitland (who commanded the expedition to Haiti) supported Touissant. William Wilberforce, the titan of British abolitionism, was friends with Haitian President Henri Christophe and helped the latter to establish schools which would educate a new generation of free Haitians.

I would argue again depending on the pod the Haitians have a better reputation if its one were Napoleon re established slavery the Haitians would be remembered as martyrs by the British abolition movement especially with the crackdowns that were to follow rather than the otl were they stopped supporting Haiti and came up with many justifications to support abolition in light of the massacre that occurred

Without Haiti I can easily see abolition being pushed back in Britain by at least a decade.
You also go on to say that the Congress of Vienna would oppose the slave trade. But why would it, in this ATL, without the effect of a major colonial war during which black ex-slaves fought on all sides?

I really don't see as mentioned yeah with Haiti you have some less influence but the movement already existed the only true argument I fully agree with you is that maybe the trade is abolished later because of France this assuming of course the Brits do not abolish themselves and later make it as part of the peace treaty that the french do the same

Abolition, as it played out IOTL, was not an inevitability. And IMO in the ATL you propose it would be a longer and bloodier process.

Would it ? More bloody yes because sadly many Haitians are getting killed but again the sugar prices are going to drop in 1820 it did so for everyone I don't expect Haiti to be exception there goes one of the biggest reasons to keep it unless as mentioned they diversify and as said in this comment I'm pretty sure the British and even some french abolitionist would use the french reprisals as propaganda on the evils of slavery

 

[Hydra1234]

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

This is a semantic difference between the two writers. There are similar differences between Taylor and Calhoun's writings, for instance. Jefferson's "disagreements" are the 1820s planters "reprisals," especially given how Jefferson prefaces the fear of extermination with regards to "the injuries they have sustained."

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

Not to sound like a broken record, but the Missouri Compromise was 15 years after Haiti. If Haiti was so influential in southern proslavery thought, why did it take 15 years following the event for the slavery debate to radicalize?

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

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.

So where exactly are these targeted killings preceding the white genocide? If the intent of HW Griffith was to show blacks planning a genocide, they would do a hell of a lot more in the movie than stuff ballot boxes, allow race-mixing, and

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

You didn't quote my words, but I digress. I never said that Nat Turner was the most important event in proslavery thought, just that it was more important than Haiti.

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

Except the north sending in the savages could refer to Radical Reconstruction ensuring compliance by force with soldiers. And saving the south could easily as much refer to white supremacy in the south as it could to actually saving the lives of white southerners.
"Run and do anarchy" is significantly different from a white genocide; the former merely is a reference the supposed natural state of slaves (as believed by the southerners), the latter is a deliberate, organized reprisal.

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

Except the blacks were shown as agents of the republicans, not the other way around. Blacks are regularly acting as the servants and proteges of the carpetbaggers and Radical Republics.

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.

If the Lost Cause centered around white genocide, that doesn't explain why most iterations of the lost cause skirt around the issue of slavery. One would think that if the antebellum slave system was a bulwark against this white genocide that people would be venerating it, but instead, the Lost Cause focuses on state's rights, freedom, and honor.

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

Colfax was about power and the white residents trying to maintain their political power, not fears of genocide: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4233762.pdf. The white genocide fear doesn't explain why white moderates that believed in black suffrage and citizenship also joined the riot.

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.

Haiti influenced Southern thinking to some extent, but to say that all the slaver's fears are singularly based on one event in Haiti and that a failed revolution would somehow result in a less radical south ignores so many other factors that radicalized the south.

Edit:
Also, the end of slavery in Haiti does not mean all sunshine and rainbows for the country. France proved very adept at extracting forced labour through so many other means (corvee, arbitrary taxes), and France's decolonization process was horrendous, leaving massive political instability and retaining economic hegemony. Quality of life metrics for all former French colonies are barely better than Haiti, and that includers outliers like Vietnam and Algeria.

 

[Silver01]

This is a semantic difference between the two writers. There are similar differences between Taylor and Calhoun's writings, for instance. Jefferson's "disagreements" are the 1820s planters "reprisals," especially given how Jefferson prefaces the fear of extermination with regards to "the injuries they have sustained."

Is it? one is saying that our differences means a race war will occur sometime the other one and especially the later authors say the reprisal will come quickly like if we give them their freedom this

Not to sound like a broken record, but the Missouri Compromise was 15 years after Haiti. If Haiti was so influential in southern proslavery thought, why did it take 15 years following the event for the slavery debate to radicalize?

Because the debate became more important as slavery moved west white fragility as the author calls it was already present it just grew more in the 1820s as we see the first more free black men appeared, example walker wrote for slaves to revolt and said that if the slaves gained their freedom by fighting they would kill them all

So where exactly are these targeted killings preceding the white genocide? If the intent of HW Griffith was to show blacks planning a genocide, they would do a hell of a lot more in the movie than stuff ballot boxes, allow race-mixing, and

For me to sound like a broken record this was again the first phase first race mixing giving the vote and they let go their ""carnal nature" and klan saved them from that

You didn't quote my words, but I digress. I never said that Nat Turner was the most important event in proslavery thought, just that it was more important than Haiti.

word for word you said Nat Turner that evolved the slavery argument from one of necessity and economics to being a positive good.
so of course I took it how i read it ie you believe that Nat turned was the reason they evolved from a simple economic issue to one of being positive good despite writings before that.

Colfax was about power and the white residents trying to maintain their political power, not fears of genocide: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4233762.pdf. The white genocide fear doesn't explain why white moderates that believed in black suffrage and citizenship also joined the riot.

1) were gonna ignore the source I present saying how the whites were saying the blacks would kill even women and children?

2) There not mutually exclusive as I been saying time and time again the whites feared that loosing their political power would be the first act in giving the blacks power and then they would genocide them all

Except the north sending in the savages could refer to Radical Reconstruction ensuring compliance by force with soldiers. And saving the south could easily as much refer to white supremacy in the south as it could to actually saving the lives of white southerners.
"Run and do anarchy" is significantly different from a white genocide; the former merely is a reference the supposed natural state of slaves (as believed by the southerners), the latter is a deliberate, organized reprisal.

If the Lost Cause centered around white genocide, that doesn't explain why most iterations of the lost cause skirt around the issue of slavery. One would think that if the antebellum slave system was a bulwark against this white genocide that people would be venerating it, but instead, the Lost Cause focuses on state's rights, freedom, and honor.

Because get this , the lost cause changed over time the early lost cause myth did not shy from slavery just tried to downplay it and portrays of reconstruction as well you can listen more from cynical historian which by the way also agrees that the early lost cause though that civil rights were retribution against the south and the freed slaves would go around massacre them
15:50
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EOhXF5lNgQ
of course modern lost causers have dropped this but 19th and early 20th century ones? no reconstruction was seen as bad not only because of radical republicans and carpetbaggers but as keep telling the fear of insurrection

Haiti influenced Southern thinking to some extent, but to say that all the slaver's fears are singularly based on one event in Haiti and that a failed revolution would somehow result in a less radical south ignores so many other factors that radicalized the south.

To quote Tom Army a southerners greatest fear was serville insurrection... On the magnitude of the Haitian revolution

Nat turned turned Walkers threats into reality and also made worries on serville insurrection nightmare, so lets see in a timeline were haiti does not occur does the fear of getting all killed would be start of the idea of that? or would nat be seen as just another revolt, hence why I say we cant divorce it from what occurred before we cant even ignore Walkers words which due to haiti carry weight

are there other factors for white fragility of the south of course but i do not expect we all get killed to be as popular as it was in the OTL with out Haiti.

Edit:
Also, the end of slavery in Haiti does not mean all sunshine and rainbows for the country. France proved very adept at extracting forced labour through so many other means (corvee, arbitrary taxes), and France's decolonization process was horrendous, leaving massive political instability and retaining economic hegemony. Quality of life metrics for all former French colonies are barely better than Haiti, and that includers outliers like Vietnam and Algeria.

Yes I never said the usa would be pro civil rights just that the fear of Haiti has impacted in a negative way with out of course the south does not become so how pro equal but it does have an impact as keep saying you have one less reason why a poor Southern would fight in the civil war, most likely higher literacy rate for slaves, not believing that reconstruction is the start of the race war and more

 

[PecuTheGreat]

I actually say for the leaders of Haiti to die and loose now this will sound controversial but based on Cody video had the revolution failed haiti would not have been as poor as plus slave masters in the americas are not paranoid over haiti and to add to the video it's likely the lost cause myth either never comes around or is less popular this is based on the idea that many confederates believed that a race war or what happened to Haiti would occur it never did so in part the myth comes from there to justify their failed doomsday prophecy and later like birth of a nation say it was becoming Haiti had the Dems not """" saved"""" the south

Imo you don't have that with out if Haitian revolution fails

How many of those involved, actually became heads of state?. If not, it doesn't exactly fit the theme of this.

If not, I would say the people that assassinated the first Haitian Head of State,
Jean-Jacques Dessalines should die same with the André Rigaud for antagonizing Toussaint L'Ouverture unduely.

 

[PecuTheGreat]

I would say Basil II. He was a great ruler but I feel like the good times he brought made the Roman elite lose sight of their real enemies.

 

[Silver01]

How many of those involved, actually became heads of state?. If not, it doesn't exactly fit the theme of this.

If not, I would say the people that assassinated the first Haitian Head of State,
Jean-Jacques Dessalines should die same with the André Rigaud for antagonizing Toussaint L'Ouverture unduely.

This makes sense since from what I read he pushed for the massacre to the point that many of his officers were not ok with this

 

[Silver01]

I would say Basil II. He was a great ruler but I feel like the good times he brought made the Roman elite lose sight of their real enemies.

Hmm we can have him die after Bulgaria Theodora would be 38 so she can still make an heir

 

[Elfwine]

I would say Basil II. He was a great ruler but I feel like the good times he brought made the Roman elite lose sight of their real enemies.

What are you defining as their real enemies, out of curiosity?

 

[Hydra1234]

Is it? one is saying that our differences means a race war will occur sometime the other one and especially the later authors say the reprisal will come quickly like if we give them their freedom this

Like I said, Jefferson explicitly mentions the past injustices as one of the reasons for a race war. But if you want more sources, there's plenty of correspondence from the Revolutionary War talking about "wretches" and the treachery of the slaves. Here's the Virginia Convention's reaction to Dunmore's proclamation.

WHEREAS Lord Dunmore, by his proclamation, dated on board the ship William, off Norfolk, the 7th day of November 1775, hath offered freedom to such able-bodied slaves as are willing to join him, and take up arms, against the good people of this colony, giving thereby encouragement to a general insurrection, which may induce a necessity of inflicting the severest punishments upon those unhappy people, already deluded by his base and insidious arts; and whereas, by an act of the General Assembly now in force in this colony, it is enacted, that all negro or other slaves, conspiring to rebel or make insurrection, shall suffer death, and be excluded all benefit of clergy: We think it proper to declare, that all slaves who have been, or shall be seduced, by his lordship's proclamation, or other arts, to desert their masters' service, and take up arms against the inhabitants of this colony, shall be liable to such punishment as shall hereafter be directed by the General Convention. And to that end all such, who have taken this unlawful and wicked step, may return in safety to their duty, and escape the punishment due to their crimes, we hereby promise pardon to them, they surrendering themselves to Col. William Woodford, or any other commander of our troops, and not appearing in arms after the publication hereof. And we do farther earnestly recommend it to all humane and benevolent persons in this colony to explain and make known this our offer of mercy to those unfortunate people.

Because the debate became more important as slavery moved west white fragility as the author calls it was already present it just grew more in the 1820s as we see the first more free black men appeared, example walker wrote for slaves to revolt and said that if the slaves gained their freedom by fighting they would kill them all

Okay, so it's the presence of freedmen that radicalized the debate, not Haiti. I've also stated that earlier.

For me to sound like a broken record this was again the first phase first race mixing giving the vote and they let go their ""carnal nature" and klan saved them from that

Except carnal nature doesn't automatically lead to white genocide. The idea of a "black savage" was commonplace decades before Haiti, and it was associated with the entire African race, not just oppressed slaves. Here's Willem Bosman in 1704:

The Negroes are all without exception, crafty, villainous, and fraudu- lent, and very seldom to be trusted, being sure to slip no oppor- tunity of cheating an European, nor indeed one another. A man of integrity is as rare among them as a white falcon, and their fidelity seldom extends farther than to their master: and it would be surprising, if, upon a scrutiny into their lives, we should find any of them whose perverse nature would not break out sometimes, for they indeed seem to be born and bred villains; all sorts of baseness having got such sure footing in them, that it is impossible to lie concealed, and herein they agree very well with what authors tell us of the Muscovites. These degenerate vices are accompanied with their sisters, sloth and idleness, to which they are so prone that noth- ing but the utmost necessity can force them to labour: they are be- sides so incredibly careless and stupid, and are so little concerned at their misfortunes, that it is hardly to be observed by any change in them whether they have met with any good or ill success.

There's far more than just Bosman too: https://www.jstor.org/stable/273961. All these writers wrote of Africans being "savage" without alluding to a race war or vengeance for slavery.

1) were gonna ignore the source I present saying how the whites were saying the blacks would kill even women and children?

2) There not mutually exclusive as I been saying time and time again the whites feared that loosing their political power would be the first act in giving the blacks power and then they would genocide them all

The newspapers do not represent the beliefs of the rioters, or the instigators for that matter. A public justification is not the same as actual motive. The 1872 election saw a moderate fusionist coalition take power in Grant Parish. A good portion of that coalition were Republicans who had previously supported Reconstruction and black suffrage. They didn't do a 180-degree turn in a handful of years.

And the southern whites lost their political power already during Reconstruction. So where were the massacres in Birth of a Nation, during the scenes were the clan wasn't in power and the Radical Republicans were in full control?

Because get this , the lost cause changed over time the early lost cause myth did not shy from slavery just tried to downplay it and portrays of reconstruction as well you can listen more from cynical historian which by the way also agrees that the early lost cause though that civil rights were retribution against the south and the freed slaves would go around massacre them
15:50
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EOhXF5lNgQ
of course modern lost causers have dropped this but 19th and early 20th century ones? no reconstruction was seen as bad not only because of radical republicans and carpetbaggers but as keep telling the fear of insurrection

Thomas Dixon Jr. was probably the most influential proponent of the Lost Cause, and his book, The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan, was the basis for Birth of a Nation. Here's what he had to say on slavery:

I thank God that there is not to-day the clang of a single slave's chain in this continent. Slavery may have had its beneficent aspects, but democracy is the destiny of the race, because all men are bound together in the bonds of fraternal equality with common love.

And again, Dixon shies away from the issue of slavery, choosing instead to focus on the during and after of the Civil War in most of his writings.

Nat turned turned Walkers threats into reality and also made worries on serville insurrection nightmare, so lets see in a timeline were haiti does not occur does the fear of getting all killed would be start of the idea of that? or would nat be seen as just another revolt, hence why I say we cant divorce it from what occurred before we cant even ignore Walkers words which due to haiti carry weight

are there other factors for white fragility of the south of course but i do not expect we all get killed to be as popular as it was in the OTL with out Haiti.

See above regarding the reaction to Lord Dunmore's proclamation. And yes, the Southern Aristocracy was capable of deluding itself without actual evidence. It isn't a coincidence that proslavery arguments emerged around the time the cotton gin was being adopted en masse and significantly increasing the profitability of cotton plantations and power looms were being adopted in the UK and the northern US.

Yes I never said the usa would be pro civil rights just that the fear of Haiti has impacted in a negative way with out of course the south does not become so how pro equal but it does have an impact as keep saying you have one less reason why a poor Southern would fight in the civil war, most likely higher literacy rate for slaves, not believing that reconstruction is the start of the race war and more

I'm not talking about America, I'm talking about Haiti with what I said in that quoted section. Besides a convoluted path where France compromises with the revolutionaries, Haiti is absolutely not better under French rule that it is under independence, even if the French somehow abolish slavery around the same time as the British.

 

[Silver01]

Like I said, Jefferson explicitly mentions the past injustices as one of the reasons for a race war. But if you want more sources, there's plenty of correspondence from the Revolutionary War talking about "wretches" and the treachery of the slaves. Here's the Virginia Convention's reaction to Dunmore's proclamation.

I will have to disagree with this quote Jefferson yeah you convinced me but this one is arguing for not only not freeing but not arming the slaves this very different from the idea that just emancipation would lead to a race war Jefferson and later authors were saying.

Okay, so it's the presence of freedmen that radicalized the debate, not Haiti. I've also stated that earlie

and I said later in the comment Walker threats carry weight because of Haiti

Except carnal nature doesn't automatically lead to white genocide. The idea of a "black savage" was commonplace decades before Haiti, and it was associated with the entire African race, not just oppressed slaves. Here's Willem Bosman in 1704:

yeah I agree because ,I never said the idea of blacks as savages is a Haitian invention rather the blacks being let go was the first phase in what early lost causer believed to be their extinction

The newspapers do not represent the beliefs of the rioters, or the instigators for that matter. A public justification is not the same as actual motive. The 1872 election saw a moderate fusionist coalition take power in Grant Parish. A good portion of that coalition were Republicans who had previously supported Reconstruction and black suffrage. They didn't do a 180-degree turn in a handful of years.

Thank you for proving my point because yes thats pretty much What I even mentioned why even later on 1900 people were justifying Jim crow and violence to prevent a race war, the newspaper do not represent sure but it does show that some southerners still believed a race war was going to occur .

And the southern whites lost their political power already during Reconstruction. So where were the massacres in Birth of a Nation, during the scenes were the clan wasn't in power and the Radical Republicans were in full control?

Im starting to think that I'm writing my points very badly or you are not reading them well what part of loosing their power and the blacks going in to chaos is the first step in the race war that did not occur because the klan stopped them.

Thomas Dixon Jr. was probably the most influential proponent of the Lost Cause, and his book, The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan, was the basis for Birth of a Nation. Here's what he had to say on slavery:

You mean the same Thomas Dixon who said the race war was still going to be a thing in his time and that they were fine as slaves (typical of lost cause) .
Make a negro a scientific and successful farmer, and let him plant his feet deep in your soil, and it will mean a race war

And again, Dixon shies away from the issue of slavery, choosing instead to focus on the during and after of the Civil War in most of his writings.

This the man who said stuff like the crimes seen during reconstruction and in his day were never seen during slavery he like the lost causers of today try to make slavery good for the blacks, but he also goes beyond ( something common for the time) and it was whites preventing them from going on crime sprees and the punitive extermination

See above regarding the reaction to Lord Dunmore's proclamation. And yes, the Southern Aristocracy was capable of deluding itself without actual evidence. It isn't a coincidence that proslavery arguments emerged around the time the cotton gin was being adopted en masse and significantly increasing the profitability of cotton plantations and power looms were being adopted in the UK and the northern US.

from my reading of it lord dunm was afraid of arming slaves which makes perfect sense again this not abolition = death , I do not doubt that a slave revolt like Turner would scare the south or walker words alone would but as I keep saying Walker and Turner casted so much fear because Haiti Ie the slaver doomsdays scenario had actually occurred, the slavers were of course scared of revolts but hence why Tom Army says southerners greatest fear ... On the magnitude of the Haitian revolution

I'm not talking about America, I'm talking about Haiti with what I said in that quoted section. Besides a convoluted path where France compromises with the revolutionaries, Haiti is absolutely not better under French rule that it is under independence, even if the French somehow abolish slavery around the same time as the British.

Oh ok, assuming the French abolish slavery around late 1840s or early 1850s I agree with you that Haiti would still be poor today the best case scenario i see for it is it becoming like the modern day Dominican republic but it would not be as poor as OTL haiti .

 

[Hydra1234]

I will have to disagree with this quote Jefferson yeah you convinced me but this one is arguing for not only not freeing but not arming the slaves this very different from the idea that just emancipation would lead to a race war Jefferson and later authors were saying.

First, the Virginian reaction doesn't just specify taking up arms, it specifies leaving one's master. As a matter of fact, most of the freed slaves in the British army ended up doing menial work far away from the frontline, but this statement does not concern that. Recaptured slaves were punished regardless of whether they had picked up a musket or not.
Secondly, you attribute the Colfax massacre, a massacre that occurred precisely because blacks had taken up arms, to fears of white genocide, yet in the case of the reaction to Lord Dunmore's proclamation, the Virginian edict criticizing freed slaves for arming themselves is not based on fears of white genocide or slave retaliation?

and I said later in the comment Walker threats carry weight because of Haiti

Are you talking about David Walker? Because his appeal postdates the beginning of freedmen discrimination by several years. And again, without Haiti, there still would have been the experience with British emancipation during the revolutionary, plus a variety of slave revolts. And surprise, people are capable of inventing mass conspiracies without substantive evidence. I really doubt white southerners are incapable of imagining a mass slave revolt even if there isn't an example somewhere else. They already invented a ton of conspiracies regarding Reconstruction efforts, and lynch mobs were easily capably of forming over mere rumours.

yeah I agree because ,I never said the idea of blacks as savages is a Haitian invention rather the blacks being let go was the first phase in what early lost causer believed to be their extinction

So the idea of white genocide is separate from paranoia over Haiti and is more a belief rooted in the racial stereotype of black savagery that originated in the early 18th century.

Thank you for proving my point because yes thats pretty much What I even mentioned why even later on 1900 people were justifying Jim crow and violence to prevent a race war, the newspaper do not represent sure but it does show that some southerners still believed a race war was going to occur .

Do explain. I've just stated how the newspapers were a fig leaf, and how the riot was joined by moderate Republicans that would have had to undertake an unprecedented reversal of beliefs to believe in white genocide.

Im starting to think that I'm writing my points very badly or you are not reading them well what part of loosing their power and the blacks going in to chaos is the first step in the race war that did not occur because the klan stopped them.

Except step 2 is never portrayed. Blacks being "savages" was already enough of a concern for the KKK that wanted to suppress black freedoms, but instead you make wide-ranging assumptions about some future event that never actually happened in the film.

You mean the same Thomas Dixon who said the race war was still going to be a thing in his time and that they were fine as slaves (typical of lost cause) .

First, show me where Dixon said they blacks were fine as slaves. I just gave a quote to the contrary. And yes, Dixon believed in a race war, but again, that's rooted in the belief of innate black savagery, not specifically retaliation. He also doesn't believe in total extermination either. The Flaming Sword quite literally has the blacks (and communists) win, yet no genocide is being conducted.

If Dixon was paranoid over Haiti, why does he not argue for a reinstatement of the same system that "kept the peace" in Haiti? Dixon does a lot of things; argue for slavery to come back is not one of them.

from my reading of it lord dunm was afraid of arming slaves which makes perfect sense again this not abolition = death , I do not doubt that a slave revolt like Turner would scare the south or walker words alone would but as I keep saying Walker and Turner casted so much fear because Haiti Ie the slaver doomsdays scenario had actually occurred, the slavers were of course scared of revolts but hence why Tom Army says southerners greatest fear ... On the magnitude of the Haitian revolution

Not sure what you're getting at here; Lord Dunmore was the one who promised emancipation and formed a regiment of escaped slaves (Lord Dunmore's Ethiopian Regiment). He was not afraid of arming slaves.

Oh ok, assuming the French abolish slavery around late 1840s or early 1850s I agree with you that Haiti would still be poor today the best case scenario i see for it is it becoming like the modern day Dominican republic but it would not be as poor as OTL haiti .

https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Former-French-colonies/Haiti/Health
Haiti performs better than the former French colonies in aggregate in metrics like life expectancy, teenage birth rates, and infant mortality. Mind you, this includes countries like Vietnam, that managed to pull itself together with successful postcolonial policies, and French North Africa (Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco), which are resource rich and had preferential colonial treatment. French colonialism was horrific, and it's absolutely possible for Haiti to end up worse with an extra century and a half of French rule (and another 70 or so years of French neocolonialism).

 

[Silver01]

Are you talking about David Walker? Because his appeal postdates the beginning of freedmen discrimination by several years. And again, without Haiti, there still would have been the experience with British emancipation during the revolutionary, plus a variety of slave revolts. And surprise, people are capable of inventing mass conspiracies without substantive evidence. I really doubt white southerners are incapable of imagining a mass slave revolt even if there isn't an example somewhere else. They already invented a ton of conspiracies regarding Reconstruction efforts, and lynch mobs were easily capably of forming over mere rumours.

i do not doubt it these are the same people who revolted for the fear of abe taking their slaves but he did really want to limit its spread which was already bad enough but again as I keep saying I dont see the race war or genodice ideal being as popular with out haiti it just be one of many conspiracies and pro slaver arguments rather as mentioned a very imporant reason as to why poor people from the south

First, show me where Dixon said they blacks were fine as slaves. I just gave a quote to the contrary.

Sure

And yes, Dixon believed in a race war, but again, that's rooted in the belief of innate black savagery, not specifically retaliation. He also doesn't believe in total extermination either. The Flaming Sword quite literally has the blacks (and communists) win, yet no genocide is being conducted.

If Dixon was paranoid over Haiti, why does he not argue for a reinstatement of the same system that "kept the peace" in Haiti? Dixon does a lot of things; argue for slavery to come back is not one of them.

So the idea of white genocide is separate from paranoia over Haiti and is more a belief rooted in the racial stereotype of black savagery that originated in the early 18th century.

well you did show Jefferson beliving that race war was going to occur but what was referring to is giving any political or education power to the blacks as seen during and even after reconstruction would be the start of white genodice as even Dixion agreed in the early 20th century and as I keep saying Haiti played a role because it shows the """ failures of abolitionist""" as Atun-Shei Films said people when their doomsday prophecy did not come true began to say oh slavery was just a tiny part or Like Dixion still belived it was going to occur.

Do explain. I've just stated how the newspapers were a fig leaf, and how the riot was joined by moderate Republicans that would have had to undertake an unprecedented reversal of beliefs to believe in white genocide.

Because my point was never the rioters belived that my point is southerners as shown by the quote still had the idea that white genocide was still on the books as mentioned In my comment just above this one people came with many excuses as to why the massacre they expected to occur following emancipation did not come its quite cultish if one reads out it .

Not sure what you're getting at here; Lord Dunmore was the one who promised emancipation and formed a regiment of escaped slaves (Lord Dunmore's Ethiopian Regiment). He was not afraid of arming slaves.

My mistake i meant to say Virginia Convention so them being afraid of giving the slaves weapons is a much less crazy fear than emancipation alone would lead to Haiti style massacre.

Except step 2 is never portrayed. Blacks being "savages" was already enough of a concern for the KKK that wanted to suppress black freedoms, but instead you make wide-ranging assumptions about some future event that never actually happened in the film.

wide ranging assumptions being the believes of the time not only of racist supreme Dixon but also like the people of NC who also said that jim crow was preventing the race war.

First, show me where Dixon said they blacks were fine as slaves. I just gave a quote to the contrary. And yes, Dixon believed in a race war, but again, that's rooted in the belief of innate black savagery, not specifically retaliation. He also doesn't believe in total extermination either. The Flaming Sword quite literally has the blacks (and communists) win, yet no genocide is being conducted.

1) there not contradictory even modern people who believe in the lost cause myth will tell you

2) to quote Andrew Leiter on the man, he parades a host of incidents highlighting the supposed regression of African Americans since emancipation when the controlling mechanism of slavery disappeared. Dixon's evidence of moral decrepitude ranges from the innate character flaws of stupidity, hypersexuality, insolence, and cowardice to crimes of political corruption, robbery, murder, and rape.

So yes they were "fine under slavery" and with emancipation they suffered moral degradation he is by no means the first one to say this BS as early as 1868 we see this

On the last part I will be honest and not only are you rigth but it goes beyond that later in life Dixon still believed in race war but he also says whites would win said race war I do no remember the source but I will find it but it some what a change from his earlier views that keeping black people down was self preservation, of course later on he does not want a race war but is as mentioned convinced that whites will win it.

Also kind of hard to say retaliation for 1900 slavery had been banned already my point was the man like many other lost causers , essentially he by the notion of another doomsday prophecy that never came to be ie the race war( which he can not shut up about) formed the foundation of Dixon’s defense of the Reconstruction Trilogy.

I will agree to this views of what would have happened had the redeemers not saved the south was varied, you had people who though it was gonna be Haiti 2.0 as people during the late civil war said, others who said it would create a race war in the long run by mixed racing and by proxy weakening the whites, the other was there was going to be no race war like John H. Van who believed via Darwinism that the blacks would become extinct

If Dixon was paranoid over Haiti, why does he not argue for a reinstatement of the same system that "kept the peace" in Haiti? Dixon does a lot of things; argue for slavery to come back is not one of them.

Because he was not pro slavery, he just believed like many lost causers at the time that Haiti 2.0 was prevented and like many white supremacist of the early 20th century the views on when how and what will the outcome of the next race war be changed, I even admitted myself later in life he believed whites were going to win said race war because whites were superior which yeah is contradictory to the statements that he would believe Haiti 2.0 would occur not only in reconstruction but also in the race war of the future.

But this is quite common, the further one goes from the civil war the fear of Haiti disappears replaced by new "prophecies" about how the race wars is going to occur and they are very diverse.

Haiti performs better than the former French colonies in aggregate in metrics like life expectancy, teenage birth rates, and infant mortality. Mind you, this includes countries like Vietnam, that managed to pull itself together with successful postcolonial policies, and French North Africa (Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco), which are resource rich and had preferential colonial treatment. French colonialism was horrific, and it's absolutely possible for Haiti to end up worse with an extra century and a half of French rule (and another 70 or so years of French neocolonialism).

Hmm ok you convinced me on this one its possible that Haiti could be worse but I haiti started from rock bottom it really depends how French treat the colony post slavery

But that pretty much sums it Up haiti may or may not be better than the Olt and Black slave owners have no concrete examples of the "failure of abolition" and less fears of White genocide, the idea may or may not come about on its on but I nor you have any idea if it would be as popular as the OTL i for one do not think it would be, so yeah my position still is that most likely in the long run blacks have better outcome with out a southern fear of haiti

 

[Silver01]

, and it's absolutely possible for Haiti to end up worse with an extra century and a half of French rule (and another 70 or so years of French neocolonialism).

This does make me wonder based on this scenario assuming america still goes to the path of world power would America try to eye Haiti like it did cuba and puerto rico and help a Haitian any revolt like OTL cuba ? or would it be more of a proxy war like the american german proxy wars over Samoa because really that sounds like an interesting butterfly

 

[Fulano]

this I agree with no haiti revolution is very different from the Haitian revolution is crushed but my point was the violence and later actions of haiti made it a pariah state that had a big negative consequence to the souther slaves in the usa

Haiti being a "pariah state" is overstated. Yes, it happened, but they still had other options.
For example, Simon Bolivar actually admire Haitians for their fights against their colonial masters and saw them as an example for himself to keep fighting in the independence wars. If Haiti had better leaders, they could have created stronger relationships with the Hispanic American countries when those became independent.
Also, it didn't help Haitians accepted to pay the "reparations" the French demanded, taking a toll in their already fragile economy.
And the fact that they conquered the other half of the island, bringing more instability to the equation and impacting the views and goodwill the other Latin American nations had on them.

 

[Wendell]

Haiti being a "pariah state" is overstated. Yes, it happened, but they still had other options.
For example, Simon Bolivar actually admire Haitians for their fights against their colonial masters and saw them as an example for himself to keep fighting in the independence wars. If Haiti had better leaders, they could have created stronger relationships with the Hispanic American countries when those became independent.
Also, it didn't help Haitians accepted to pay the "reparations" the French demanded, taking a toll in their already fragile economy.
And the fact that they conquered the other half of the island, bringing more instability to the equation and impacting the views and goodwill the other Latin American nations had on them.

From a Haitian strategic standpoint, conquering the rest of the island made sense.

 

[Silver01]

For example, Simon Bolivar actually admire Haitians for their fights against their colonial masters and saw them as an example for himself to keep fighting in the independence wars. If Haiti had better leaders, they could have created stronger relationships with the Hispanic American countries when those became independent.

I did read of this to be fair Latam was not ....you know stable after independence grand Colombia collapsed and my own country of peru went in to near constant civil war until 1850 even during the guano boom the economy collapsed some years later

Also, it didn't help Haitians accepted to pay the "reparations" the French demanded, taking a toll in their already fragile economy.

This also very true

The best scenario some one mentioned is have Dessalines die that way
1) haiti is free and no slaves which is always a plus
2) the 1804 massacre that really was more of his doing and people and his officers would usually not do it until he forced them to , so you avoid that PR nightmare for Haiti does not occur also it was one of the parts of the reoperations, also if the 1804 massacre does not occur of course violence had ocured but instead of being dismissed and stopped being supported by British abolitionist Haiti becomes a beacon of support due the fact that it showed slaves were capable of ruling themselves which already was an argument in 1790s until the massacre ruined their pro haiti stances