Hi I’m Clint Smith, and this is Crash Course
Black American History, and today we’re going to be talking about the Louisiana Rebellion
of 1811, which was the largest slave revolt in American history. The Louisiana Rebellion of 1811, also known
as the German Coast Uprising, was epic by all accounts. On what was called Epiphany Sunday, some emboldened
enslaved men reached an /epiphany/ like none other. They were determined to take the city of New
Orleans and burn everything else down in the process. Let’s check it out. I want to note up top that this episode will
address some challenging topics like extreme violence. A few days later, on a rainy evening the night
of January 8th, 1811, hundreds of enslaved men took up arms, determined to secure their
freedom. It is remarkable to consider that hundreds
of enslaved people, who came from different countries, with different native languages
and different tribal affiliations, were able to organize themselves as effectively as they
did. Dressed in military garb, this group marched
through plantations from the German Coast Area to New Orleans. They gathered more soldiers as they went. Their ultimate goal: To strike a blow to the
system of slavery in Louisiana and the entire nation. On the German Coast of Louisiana where the
rebellion took place—named as such for the German immigrants who settled there—roughly
60 percent of the total population was enslaved. The fear of armed insurrection had long been
in the air. The leader of this rebellion was a mixed-race
slave driver named Charles Deslondes[a]. Deslondes had been inspired by the Haitian
revolution that ended only seven years prior in 1804. A revolution in which Black forces--who at
various points had fought off the British, the Spanish, and the French-- created the
first nation to permanently ban slavery and would become the first Black republic in the
world. The German Coast Uprising revealed the Haitian
Revolution's impact not only on the demographics of Louisiana, which had up to that point been
importing enslaved workers from Haiti, but also how the success of the revolution fundamentally
changed the trajectory of US history by making possible the Louisiana Purchase. If you recall, in 1803, Thomas Jefferson purchased
a huge chunk of North America from France. Whether he was allowed to do so under his
presidential authority is up for debate. But in any case, Napoleon Bonaparte was in
need of some money, after the Haitian Revolution had dashed his hopes of building a French
empire in the New World. The French army was so beleaguered from battle
and disease that by the end of the war, more than 80% of the soldiers sent to try and quell
the Haitian Revolution had died. Napoleon Bonaparte, looking to cut his losses
and refocus his attention on his military battles in Europe, sold the entire territory
of Louisiana to Thomas Jefferson’s negotiators for a paltry fifteen million dollars—about
four cents an acre. Without the Haitian Revolution, it is unlikely
that Napoleon would have sold a land mass that doubled the size of the then United States,
especially as Jefferson had intended to approach the French basically looking to purchase New
Orleans in order to have access to the mouth of the Mississippi River. There were also many Haitians who emigrated
to the US in the years following the revolution. According to historian Manisha Sinha[b], "The
most direct consequence of the Haitian Revolution in the United States was the influx of refugees
into cities like New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Charleston, and New Orleans." In other words, New Orleans and much of Southern
Louisiana, had long-standing connections with Haiti. This tells us a lot about the climate at the
time of the German Coast Uprising. A significant amount of the enslaved population
had arrived soon after witnessing a slave uprising that led to the abolition of slavery
and the establishment of a free country. So, as I'm sure you can imagine, a number
of the refugees that came to the United States were very much bringing the spirit of the
Haitian Revolution with them. Charles Deslondes was born in Saint-Domingue[c][d][e][f][g]--current
day Haiti-- or in Louisiana in 1787. There’s some debate about just where he
was born. In any case, by 1811, Charles was a slave
driver on the plantation of Manuel Andry.[h][i][j] Andry was known for the cruelty and violence
he practiced on his plantation. But Charles was an overseer on this plantation,
which granted him more privileges than other enslaved people. It also gave him the right to inflict punishment
on other enslaved people. And while this did not mean he was exempt
from Andry's cruelty or violence, his position granted him some relative power within the
slave system. It was another one of the upsetting and insidious
things about slavery--both to be tasked with inflicting violence on the enslaved, while
you are enslaved yourself. What we find, however, is that in the context
of this rebellion Charles’ position was essential in the hatching and carrying out
the plan. You see, Black men sometimes occupied the
role of overseer in the Deep South because it positioned them as a sort of middleman
between plantation owners and plantation laborers. When field laborers made plans to resist,
they would usually have to communicate in code or in secret, small groups to avoid getting
caught. But if the overseer is the one coming up with
the plan, rather than the one trying to stop it, it’s a whole different ball game. But Charles did not do this work alone. To pull off something so tremendous he would
need help. Two enslaved men, named Kook[k] and Quamana[l],
worked closely by Charles’s side and emerged as influential leaders of the rebellion. What was the plan? While it’s difficult to know exactly because
of limited documentation from the time, there is some important information that we do know. Let's go to the thought bubble. The Sunday just before the uprising, plantation
owner James Brown spotted three men Charles, Quamana, and Harry, an enslaved carpenter
from Virginia, meeting in secret. They packed into a small shack behind the
big house of the Andry plantation, while the rest of the enslaved population was out enjoying
Epiphany Sunday. Enslaved black people who grew their own crops
in addition to their duties regularly met on Sundays in the marketplace to trade with
others. Epiphany Sunday occurred on one of these Sundays
once a year. The marketplace, filled with a mix of African
captives, Haitians, and native-born Black Americans was not only a place to trade goods,
but was also often a festive place with drums, singing, and dancing. Spanish enslavers who were well experienced
with trading and managing African captives thought this was a bad idea, commenting that
these celebratory proceedings could be masking up plans to rebel. And they were right. Historians have noted that these dancing sessions
could also serve as covert military training. From the time they arrived in 1806, Kook and
Quamana used such events to tap into the network of enslaved people from all over New Orleans. They immediately showed discontent for their
enslaved status and took to the streets spreading the word of their plans to rebel "away from
the watchful eyes and listening ears of the white planter class."[m]
So we can't determine what exactly Charles, and the others were saying in those secret
meetings. But it’s clear that it provided the kindling
for what would become one of the most explosive rebellions in American history. Thanks, Thought Bubble. The rebellion began when between fifteen and
twenty-five enslaved men attacked Manuel Andry on his plantation. Though wounded, Andry managed to escape to
warn other plantation owners in the vicinity. Andry's son Gilbert, however, was killed. The rebels then broke into Manuel Andry’s
stores and stole weapons and militia uniforms. As they moved into St. Charles Parish, they
amassed quite a following. While some available documents suggest that
only 124 enslaved people participated, several eye-witness accounts attest to much larger
numbers, closer to 500. Regardless, this group appeared to be the
size of a small army. As the men marched along the bends of the
river—drums rumbling, flags held high above their heads—they attacked several plantations
with an assortment of knives, machetes, muskets, and other scavenged weapons, killing two white
men and destroying property in their wake. Still, not many of the enslaved fighters had
guns, and it would take only a small number of armed troops to stop their liberatory march. Within forty-eight hours, local militia and
federal troops suppressed the rebellion. Deslondes briefly escaped the initial wave
of slaughter by hiding in the swamp but was quickly captured and executed. His hands were chopped off, the bones in his
legs were shattered by bullets, and he was burned over a bale of straw. Many of the rebels were slaughtered on-site,
their heads cut off and posted on stakes that lined the levee, a warning to other enslaved
people that this was the price to pay for rebellion. Naval officer Samuel Hambleton wrote: “They
were brung here for the sake of their Heads, which decorate our Levee, all the way up the
coast. They look like crows sitting on long poles.” Commodore Shaw captured the planters’ sense
of fear that pushed them to respond with such violence against those who had participated
in the insurrection, and make an example to the larger enslaved population. “Had not the most prompt and energetic measures
been thus taken, the whole coast would have exhibited a general sense of devastation;
every description of property would have been consumed; and the country laid waste by Rioters.” The backlash was brutal. Alarmed enslavers in Louisiana invested resources
in training local militias, and slave patrols began surveilling Black people with increasing
frequency in addition to limiting their ability to congregate in large groups. Meanwhile, the federal government committed
to defending the institution of slavery by officially granting Louisiana statehood, as
a slave state, in 1812. Unlike some other rebellions that have become
central to our collective memory of slavery, the 1811 slave revolt has received far less
attention. As we mentioned, there are no notes of what
was said between the co-conspirators, and we don’t have much that gives us insight
into what Charles may have been thinking. And while scholars are unclear why Charles
would have been willing to give up the security his position gave him, what is clear is that,
for him, that tearing down the institution was worth risking it all. So was the uprising a success? As we’ve said before, notions of what is
or isn’t a successful slave revolt are subjective and kind of less important than that fact
that this rebellion took place at all. Because while they may not have been able
to take the city, they certainly dealt a blow to the system. One that would change the entire framework
of the institution for years to come. Thanks for watching, see you next time. Crash Course is made with the help of all
these nice people and our animation team is Thought Cafe. Crash Course is a Complexly production. If you’d like to keep Crash Course free
for everybody, forever, you can support the series at Patreon; a crowdfunding platform
that allows you to support the content you love. Thank you to all of our patrons for making
Crash Course possible with their continued support. [n][o][p] [a]pronouncer: https://youtu.be/FTc7jyceteI?t=132
[b]Pronouncer- SIN-ha [c]Replace with: Charles Deslondes was born
. . . somewhere. It’s long been suggested he was born in
Saint-Domingue, what is current day Haiti, sometime in the late 18th century. But several modern scholars think he was actually
born in Louisiana. No matter what, by 1811 Charles was a slave
driver on the plantation of Manuel Andry. Ok. Few things. One, we don’t know where Charles was born
(I’m not saying Deslondes for reasons that’ll be clear in a second). Traditionally it was Haiti, seemingly entirely
knowing that A Charles was brought to New Orleans and sold. And that seems to be it—someone who had
the extremely common name Charles. Nowadays most proper historians seem to say
the evidence leans toward him being born in Louisiana. Second, according to German Coast Project
(which somebody did for their thesis), Andry was Spanish, not French. Though obviously at this point he’s American. Finally, Charles was never enslaved by Andry. Deslondes isn’t his real last name—it
was the name of his enslaver, Jacques Deslondes. But he had died years earlier so Jacques’
widow had loaned him out to Andry. https://germancoastproject.omeka.net/exhibits/show/insurrection/who-was-there- https://oxfordaasc.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195301731.001.0001/acref-9780195301731-e-38941 https://books.google.com/books?id=dSrXCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA58&dq=Charles+Deslondes+born+1787&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwimpJXCquXvAhUSac0KHc04DlYQ6AEwAHoECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Deslondes%20born%201787&f=false
[d]_Marked as resolved_ [e]_Re-opened_
[f]Pronouncer: SAN DO-MAING-uh https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsAJ-whSzUY
[g]0:08 [h]Replace with: Charles Deslondes was born
. . . somewhere. It’s long been suggested he was born in
Saint-Domingue, what is current day Haiti, sometime in the late 18th century. But several modern scholars think he was actually
born in Louisiana. No matter what, by 1811 Charles was a slave
driver on the plantation of Manuel Andry. Ok. Few things. One, we don’t know where Charles was born
(I’m not saying Deslondes for reasons that’ll be clear in a second). Traditionally it was Haiti, seemingly entirely
knowing that A Charles was brought to New Orleans and sold. And that seems to be it—someone who had
the extremely common name Charles. Nowadays most proper historians seem to say
the evidence leans toward him being born in Louisiana. Second, according to German Coast Project
(which somebody did for their thesis), Andry was Spanish, not French. Though obviously at this point he’s American. Finally, Charles was never enslaved by Andry. Deslondes isn’t his real last name—it
was the name of his enslaver, Jacques Deslondes. But he had died years earlier so Jacques’
widow had loaned him out to Andry. https://germancoastproject.omeka.net/exhibits/show/insurrection/who-was-there- https://oxfordaasc.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195301731.001.0001/acref-9780195301731-e-38941 https://books.google.com/books?id=dSrXCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA58&dq=Charles+Deslondes+born+1787&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwimpJXCquXvAhUSac0KHc04DlYQ6AEwAHoECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Deslondes%20born%201787&f=false
[i]_Marked as resolved_ [j]_Re-opened_
[k]Pronouncer: KOOK [l]Pronouncer: kwa-MON-uh
[m]Rasmussen Qoute [n]Replace with: Charles Deslondes was born
. . . somewhere. It’s long been suggested he was born in
Saint-Domingue, what is current day Haiti, sometime in the late 18th century. But several modern scholars think he was actually
born in Louisiana. No matter what, by 1811 Charles was a slave
driver on the plantation of Manuel Andry. Ok. Few things. One, we don’t know where Charles was born
(I’m not saying Deslondes for reasons that’ll be clear in a second). Traditionally it was Haiti, seemingly entirely
knowing that A Charles was brought to New Orleans and sold. And that seems to be it—someone who had
the extremely common name Charles. Nowadays most proper historians seem to say
the evidence leans toward him being born in Louisiana. Second, according to German Coast Project
(which somebody did for their thesis), Andry was Spanish, not French. Though obviously at this point he’s American. Finally, Charles was never enslaved by Andry. Deslondes isn’t his real last name—it
was the name of his enslaver, Jacques Deslondes. But he had died years earlier so Jacques’
widow had loaned him out to Andry. https://germancoastproject.omeka.net/exhibits/show/insurrection/who-was-there- https://oxfordaasc.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195301731.001.0001/acref-9780195301731-e-38941 https://books.google.com/books?id=dSrXCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA58&dq=Charles+Deslondes+born+1787&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwimpJXCquXvAhUSac0KHc04DlYQ6AEwAHoECAUQAg#v=onepage&q=Charles%20Deslondes%20born%201787&f=false
[o]_Marked as resolved_ [p]_Re-opened_
Saw this episode today.
I have a deep insight into American History.
Even the parts that don't get put in history books or classes.
I have NEVER heard of this and I feel sad that kids learn none of this stuff growing up.
I WANT MORE!! American Indian History, Canadian History, Central & South American History.
The New World is made up of Immigrants and multi-faceted groups & peoples.
MORE OF THESE!!!