This article was never intended (or presented) as an all-sided history of Haiti's revolution or as an evaluation of the questions of line and policy it includes.

It is the more limited story of how a small organized core intervened in a much larger and chaotic situation -- and pulled something unexpected into being. it is a story of the importance of the "subjective factor" -- that the actions and decisions of people (including individuals) matter a great deal in how events turn out. It is (as the title says) the story of a slave army and its founder.

RE writes:

<blockquote>"Certainly, his leadership was crucial, historic, and in many respects, obviously, heroic. There is much to learn from his many successes, and breakthroughs, as well as from his mistakes, failures, and limitations. But this narrative in celebrating him so, does not engage much in an analysis of the latter."</blockquote>

But if others want to take this opportunity to dig in deeper -- I too am interested in reading a summation of Toussant's "mistakes, failures and limitations."

So, if you think there is a side that wasn't told correctly in this article, don't hold back. What are the mistakes, failures and limitations we should engage? Share with us which errors you are referring to, and the line they embody, and let us discuss them here.
<strong>
Here is my view:</strong>

Toussaint was a great leader of the anti-slave revolution. And he led the struggle against slavery through many complex twists and turns -- against many powerful opponents. And accomplished what no one else had ever done -- bringing this new thing into existence. He may have made serious mistakes, but that unique accomplishment stands on its own.

Toussaint was not, however, a communist -- not even in the sense that Badiou talks about pre-capitalist historical figures (Spartacus, Thomas Muncer) raising an early version of our "communist hypothesis" -- by calling for radical equalities and communal ownership. The great early-communist rebel Sheikh Bedrettin called for "everything in common, except the lips of my lover" -- a powerful vision.

Toussaint was not a communist rebel in that sense -- he was a very practical, consistent, far-sighted, utterly tenacious opponent of <em>slavery</em> (not of class society generally).

In doing my study of that period of Haiti's history... I often thought to myself that the slaves had three possible socio-political programs that could be established after their initial victory:

1) They could keep the plantations broken, and go back to village life. This was the general trend before Toussaint emerged. This would possibly have led to a great deal of internal fighting (as it had already started to do) and would have broken up any basis for national defense (as it often had in Africa).

2) They could maintain plantation life but <em>without</em> slavery. This would require radical change -- and a fight to uphold the standard of abolition. It would also mean a limited accomodation of some of the previous rulers (but without the right to treat people as slaves) And that would in significant ways allow the central government to maintain a large slave army (based on the organization at the grass roots) with which to defeat new enemies as they arrived. This was Toussaint's path.

3) They could have returned to slavery -- in one form or another -- either by having the leaders of their revolt establish themselves as new slave owners, or by being defeated when new foreign armies arrived. This road was one Toussaint fought hard to avoid -- and he punished those within his movement who had people whipped (for example).

Again Toussaint (in some ways, like Lincoln and Grant in the U.S.) represented a strategy for eliminating slavery, but did not embody an early and radical sense of egalitarianism. And I can understand that there is controversy over that -- among us as communists.

So, I'm curious, what would a better program or strategy have looked like? Can you describe one that both deals with their objective military and social situation, but departs from Toussaint's approach and outlook?

There may be other weaknesses in Toussaint (who doesn't have them?) -- he clearly "made mistakes" (including the terrible one that allowed him to be captured!)

But really the main question here (of limitations etc.) involve these basic line questions of the Haitian revolution.

There are (for example) political forces who are rather hostile to the leaders of the U.S. civil war. It is possible to point to statements by Lincoln (particular as he ran for office the first time) that express open white supremacist views. Clearly General Sherman was not an advocate of black equality (or even of arming former slaves). Several Union generals had African "body servants" (some of whom were legally in slave-bondage as the war started). And so on.

But they <em>did</em> lead an effort of millions to crush the slave-owners and liberate the slaves with guns in hand -- at the cost of hundreds of thousands of casualties.

They are revolutionary forces (in the way that real-world revolutionary forces emerge) -- with diverse class forces and programs coming together. hey were not communist forces (except for <a href="/http://kasamaproject.org/2008/07/17/the-sale-of-budweiser-memories-of-beer-lovers-hemp-farmers-and-bloody-revolution/" rel="nofollow">the few forces gathered under Fremont in the west</a>.) But there is nonetheless a great deal that can be learned from their complex struggle (despite their particular class and political character).