What happens to slavery if the British crush the Haitian Revolution?

I don't remember all the details off hand, but the British were pretty good at divide and conquer techniques. One of the reasons the French lost Hispanola is because they lost the support of Creoles (Black/White Admixtures) during the Revolution, who'd traditionally provided the backbone of their local physical strength. The British were only able to hold on to Jamaica against enslaved Africans majorities, as a remember, because of the Maroon and Creole support. I suppose the true answer for British conquest of Haiti is to somehow win over the Creoles, and on top of that create a Maroon like faction on the island among Africans. How likely is that?

What do you mean by créole? Do you mean the mulâtre populace? The créole (criollo/white) populace was expelled or massacred during the war...
 

Maoistic

Banned
Revisionist history.

The Haitian Revolution didn't inspire abolition - that was coming for decades before. And Dessalines may have outlawed slavery but the economic serfdom he introduced was almost indistinguishable.

The slave uprisings in America which some have argued show the spread of the Haitian revolution were suppressed and did not lead to any early abolition of slavery.

The banning of the slave trade in the UK in 1807 was delayed from 1791 primarily because of the association of the Haitian revolution with Jacobinism. You could argue that the Haitian revolution actually delayed the progress of universal abolition by almost two decades.
Notwithstanding the abolition of slavery in all continental Spanish ex-colonies, which is a major portion of the American continent. And so what if Dessalines, whose reign fell anyway, replaced slavery with serfdom? Fact is that the Haitian revolutionaries were the first to abolish slavery completely, instead of just the partial abolition you see in the United States.

You also have to prove that the English would have abolished slavery by 1791 had the Haitian Revolution not happened, which sounds like you prefer for the Haitians to have remained an unfree colony of slaves. Seems to me that the Haitian Revolution, cited by the likes of William Wilberforce, was actually the deciding factor in abolishing slavery in the British Empire, though only to be replaced by even worse forms of forced labour like coolieism.
 
@Maoistic I actually have Avengers of the New World. Where does Dubois say that "the Haitian Revolution is what effectively inspired the total abolition of (legal) slavery in the 19th century"?
 
Notwithstanding the abolition of slavery in all continental Spanish ex-colonies, which is a major portion of the American continent. And so what if Dessalines, whose reign fell anyway, replaced slavery with serfdom? Fact is that the Haitian revolutionaries were the first to abolish slavery completely, instead of just the partial abolition you see in the United States.

You also have to prove that the English would have abolished slavery by 1791 had the Haitian Revolution not happened, which sounds like you prefer for the Haitians to have remained an unfree colony of slaves. Seems to me that the Haitian Revolution, cited by the likes of William Wilberforce, was actually the deciding factor in abolishing slavery in the British Empire, though only to be replaced by even worse forms of forced labour like coolieism.
I don't have to prove anything - you made the assertion in your original post that the Haitian revolution inspired the total abolition of slavery. Despite the fact that two years before the Haitian revolution Wilberforce had introduced his bill for the abolition of the slave trade. You now have slid your proposition to "being the deciding factor".

Then you try to smear me by suggesting that I would "prefer for the Haitians to have remained an unfree colony of slaves". Which is a pretty low blow.

If I can quote Dubois p.186 (in my copy) he says that the laws introduced by Toussaint and Dessalines restricting ex-slaves to only work on the plantations they lived on delivered "an existence that stank of slavery".

I would have preferred that Wilberforce had been successful in 1791 or 1792. One of the impediments to his success was the French revolution and its step-child the Haitian revolution. Both became mired in a sea of blood that associated the Haitian cause with that of the French.

And only some of the Spanish colonies moved straight to abolitionism - mainly due to the status of ex-slaves fighting in the wars of independence. Others like Argentina didn't have absolute abolition until the 1850's.
 
I don't have to prove anything - you made the assertion in your original post that the Haitian revolution inspired the total abolition of slavery. Despite the fact that two years before the Haitian revolution Wilberforce had introduced his bill for the abolition of the slave trade. You now have slid your proposition to "being the deciding factor".

Note that the (external) slave trade is a quite distinct concept from slavery itself. Many countries abolished the former decades earlier than the latter.
 
Note that the (external) slave trade is a quite distinct concept from slavery itself. Many countries abolished the former decades earlier than the latter.
True - but replacing slavery with a system which confined ex-slaves to work on their plantations with no freedom of movement is not abolition either (and yes I do know the British did almost the exact same thing in the Caribbean but it only lasted until 1838)
 

Maoistic

Banned
I don't have to prove anything - you made the assertion in your original post that the Haitian revolution inspired the total abolition of slavery. Despite the fact that two years before the Haitian revolution Wilberforce had introduced his bill for the abolition of the slave trade. You now have slid your proposition to "being the deciding factor".

Then you try to smear me by suggesting that I would "prefer for the Haitians to have remained an unfree colony of slaves". Which is a pretty low blow.

If I can quote Dubois p.186 (in my copy) he says that the laws introduced by Toussaint and Dessalines restricting ex-slaves to only work on the plantations they lived on delivered "an existence that stank of slavery".

I would have preferred that Wilberforce had been successful in 1791 or 1792. One of the impediments to his success was the French revolution and its step-child the Haitian revolution. Both became mired in a sea of blood that associated the Haitian cause with that of the French.

And only some of the Spanish colonies moved straight to abolitionism - mainly due to the status of ex-slaves fighting in the wars of independence. Others like Argentina didn't have absolute abolition until the 1850's.
Both revolutions became mired in blood because of British intervention, and what proof is there that Wilberforce and the abolitionists would have been successful in the parliament without both revolutions? Again, the contrary seems true since the abolition of slavery took place when they started citing the example of Haiti. And those "some" that moved into straight abolition include Mexico, Central America and Chile, a good majority of the Spanish colonial holdings. Moreover, just because abolition was gradual, doesn't mean that the Haitian Revolution wasn't the catalyst of it.
 

Maoistic

Banned
I mean, these states then also abolished slavery.
Until the Civil War was slavery finally completely abolished without any of the previous caveats in the northern states that permitted some form of it in their constitutions.
 
Until the Civil War was slavery finally completely abolished without any of the previous caveats in the northern states that permitted some form of it in their constitutions.

What is "some form"? The 1790 census recorded no slaves in Massachussetts for instance.
 
Both revolutions became mired in blood because of British intervention, and what proof is there that Wilberforce and the abolitionists would have been successful in the parliament without both revolutions? Again, the contrary seems true since the abolition of slavery took place when they started citing the example of Haiti. And those "some" that moved into straight abolition include Mexico, Central America and Chile, a good majority of the Spanish colonial holdings. Moreover, just because abolition was gradual, doesn't mean that the Haitian Revolution wasn't the catalyst of it.
Laurent Dubois in his book "Avengers of the New World" basically argues - or at least one can come to the conclusion by reading it - that the Haitian Revolution is what effectively inspired the total abolition of (legal) slavery in the 19th century. Thus the question in the title: what happens to slavery had the British crushed the Haitian Revolution in its invasion of Haiti during the French Revolutionary Wars?

So shall we deal with the original post which says that Haiti inspired the total abolition of (legal) slavery then? Still waiting for the quote from Dubois.

And are you really saying that the British caused the Terror in the French Revolution? And how could the British be responsible for the first two years of deaths in Haiti when at least 20,000 died in the initial conflicts when they weren't even on the island.
 
Until the Civil War was slavery finally completely abolished without any of the previous caveats in the northern states that permitted some form of it in their constitutions.
Vermont?

State constitution banned slavery in 1777 even prior to joining the Union.
 

Maoistic

Banned
So shall we deal with the original post which says that Haiti inspired the total abolition of (legal) slavery then? Still waiting for the quote from Dubois.

And are you really saying that the British caused the Terror in the French Revolution? And how could the British be responsible for the first two years of deaths in Haiti when at least 20,000 died in the initial conflicts when they weren't even on the island.

British destabilisation. Had the British not intervened, you wouldn't have the Reign of Terror while Dessalines' massacre of whites occurred after the British intervention, again a result of the British extending the war. Many of the 20,000 dead would include deaths by the anti-revolutionary side that tried to prevent the Haitian slaves from taking over, as well as being mostly soldiers instead of civilians. I understand I understand "mired in a sea of blood" is when high civilian casualties occur, such as the 1 million Japanese civlians killed by the US intervention in mainland Japan in WWII. As for Dubois' quote, here it is:

https://imgur.com/a/rxyue

Pp. 304-306. And this after saying that the Haitian Revolution "reshaped the world around it".
 

Maoistic

Banned
Vermont?

State constitution banned slavery in 1777 even prior to joining the Union.
"no male person, born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person, as a servant, slave or apprentice, after he arrives to the age of twenty-one Years, nor female, in like manner, after she arrives to the age of eighteen years, unless they are bound by their own consent, after they arrive to such age, or bound by law, for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like."

Such caveats shows that slavery wasn't completely abolished by law. Underage persons could still be held slaves as well as women who "by their own consent" agreed to be slaves, as well as those "bound by law, for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like".
 
British destabilisation. Had the British not intervened, you wouldn't have the Reign of Terror while Dessalines' massacre of whites occurred after the British intervention, again a result of the British extending the war. Many of the 20,000 dead would include deaths by the anti-revolutionary side that tried to prevent the Haitian slaves from taking over, as well as being mostly soldiers instead of civilians. I understand I understand "mired in a sea of blood" is when high civilian casualties occur, such as the 1 million Japanese civlians killed by the US intervention in mainland Japan in WWII. As for Dubois' quote, here it is:

https://imgur.com/a/rxyue

Pp. 304-306. And this after saying that the Haitian Revolution "reshaped the world around it".
Britain didn't intervene in France - France declared war on Britain on February 1st 1793.

Toussaint and the revolutionaries had already killed 4,000 whites in the initial rebellion (and had suffered 15,000 casualties in return) before the British arrived. Dessalines massacre of the remaining Frenchmen had absolutely nothing to do with the British who had departed six years earlier. If anything the British by this time were assisting the Haitians in their defense by preventing French reinforcements and supplying arms to some extent.

I thought you'd use that quote - it does not say that Haiti inspired the (total) abolition of slavery. It says that Haiti inspired the slaves to consider rebellion - which failed in every case. It can also be said (and I quote Dubois p. 304)
Even as Haiti struggled, the ramifications of its revolution reshaped the
world around it. The victory of the black troops of Saint-Domingue paved
the way for the Louisiana Purchase. Bonaparte’s mission to the colony had
been the centerpiece of a new colonial policy aimed at reinvigorating the
French presence in the Americas—Louisiana was meant to supply food
for the reconstructed plantation society of Saint-Domingue—and when it
was crushed he had little choice but to give up his ambitions, to the profit
of an expanding United States. As a result slavery thrived and expanded in
North America during the next decades.

So your quotation that the Haitian Revolution "reshaped the world around it" is correct. But the context of that quote is that the outcome of the Haitian revolution contributed to the massive increase in slave ownership and exploitation in the former French colonies now sold to the USA.

So far from accelerating the total abolition of slavery, the Haitian revolution could be said to have set back the cause by underpinning the expansion of the American South slave culture.
 
Last edited:
"no male person, born in this country, or brought from over sea, ought to be holden by law, to serve any person, as a servant, slave or apprentice, after he arrives to the age of twenty-one Years, nor female, in like manner, after she arrives to the age of eighteen years, unless they are bound by their own consent, after they arrive to such age, or bound by law, for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like."

Such caveats shows that slavery wasn't completely abolished by law. Underage persons could still be held slaves as well as women who "by their own consent" agreed to be slaves, as well as those "bound by law, for the payment of debts, damages, fines, costs, or the like".

Seeing as this also covers apprentices and servants you'd have to demonstrate that it was actually used to allow slave ownership in Vermont. Given that Vermont was part of the Union and it later had to enact a Sale and Transportation Act of 1786 to prevent the trading of Vermont residents outside of Vermont it clearly wasn't perfect. But then neither was Haiti's so called elimination of slavery either.
 
Britain didn't intervene in France - France declared war on Britain on February 1st 1793.

After the British prepared for war, declared war was inevitable, agreed to finance the coalition and expelled the french ambassador. It was not like Britain was a peaceful country suddenly attacked by bloodthirsty Revolutionaries.
 
Top