Answer Happy

“The Black Republic”
The Influence of the Haitian Revolution on Northern Black
Political Consciousness, 1816–18621
1. In bullet-point format, Please highlight
8-10 important facts/findings from the read below and provide
details as to why it is impotent influencing the Haitian
Revolution, including a final summary
and likewise predicted that there would be a mass exodus of Black people from the US. “Considering the short time for preparation ... the number of respectable emigrants that with so much alacrity have embraced the liberal offers of President Boyer is extremely flattering, and there is every reason to believe that thousands will avail themselves of the earliest opportunity to follow their friends and brethren to the land of promise.”20 In many ways, American newspapers were correct about the numbers of African Americans who "availed" themselves of the emigration plan - at least initially. Boyer's plan was irresistible to many in the Black community and over the next few years, the Haitian government subsidized the transportation of over 6,000 free Blacks from the Northern US to Haiti. By the end of the 1820s, an estimated 13,000 African Americans had migrated to Haiti. Initial reports seemed favorable; statements sent back to the US spoke highly of the reception they received, and indicated that the settlers were thriving in their new surroundings. One report, for example, indicated that Secretary General Inginac had greeted new arrivals with excitement and a statement of Pan-African solidarity: "because the common blood of GREAT AFRICA makes unbreakable ties, all blacks are brothers regardless of language and religious distinctions."21 However, transplanted African Americans soon found themselves confronting major problems. Despite Inginac's enthusiasm for racial solidarity, African Americans were culturally distinct from their Haitian brethren in a number of important ways, and they particularly struggled with language barriers and religious differences. The settlers also quickly became frustrated by the process of land "The Black Republic" · 63 distribution, and many suspected that they had been duped. Apprehensive that the government did not intend to deliver on their promise of land, settlers worried that they would be permanent laborers rather than independent landowners.22 In the face of these problems and obstacles, emigration to Haiti slowed and, in fact, there was a sizable "reverse migration" of African Americans returning to the United States. Black activist James McCune Smith reported, for example, that Peter Williams, Jr. had been compelled to return to Haiti and negotiate the release of their "disappointed, distressed, and dissatisfied brethren." In fact, in 1825, Haiti's secretary general stated that he believed nearly one-third of the original settlers had returned.23 Amidst growing disillusionment, there was another blow to the Haitian project. Perhaps partly in response to this reverse migration, Secretary General Inginac announced in May of 1825 that the government would no longer subsidize the cost of bringing African Americans to the island.24 The government insisted that their decision was prompted by the immigrants' poor attitude and performance, a belief that was echoed by a few Black migrants such as Benjamin Hughes. Hughes, the minister of Philadelphia's First African Presbyterian Church, had immigrated to Haiti in 1824 and maintained that many African Americans had overly romantic notions about what they would encounter upon their arrival in Haiti. In particular, he suggested migrants expected the Haitian government to provide for all of their needs, and were unprepared to perform agricultural labor.25 Clearly, the Haitian emigration movement was slowly unraveling. Even so, Haiti's political destiny still figured prominently in the minds of African Americans, particularly after the summer of 1825, when the French government finally agreed to recognize Haitian independence. Celebrations occurred in Black communities across the United States, as Black activists delighted in the vision of a free and fully autonomous Black republic. At a gathering of Black Baltimoreans, abolitionist William Watkins reveled in the country's success: “Of all that has hitherto been done in favor of the descendants of Africa, I recollect nothing so fraught with momentous importance ... as the recent acknowledgment of Haytien Independence, by one of the European Powers, under whom the African population of that island has long groaned in the more abject bondage. ... The joy which swells in our bosoms is incommunicable.”26 Yet over the next two years, Black leaders began to express serious reservations about the Haitian project. In part, waning enthusiasm for Haitian emigration was due to Haiti's internal problems. Not only did the government revoke the inducement plan, but Boyer instituted rather controversial taxation plans; a decision which caused severe economic distress and political upheaval. As one emigrant noted, “Ruin stares every body in the face... should this policy of the government be continued, we shall have to leave the Island." Perhaps most disappointing, however, was Boyer's decision to pay 150 million francs to France to secure Haitian independence, since his actions seemed to negate the armed struggle against slavery and caused 64 · Alexander major financial problems in the fledgling country. Freedom's Journal editor John Russwurm expressed his frustration with the “very questionable character of the late transaction with France” and maintained that Boyer's choice had dishonored the Haitian republic.27 In addition, there was ongoing concern about the US government's refusal to recognize Haiti's independence. In 1827, Freedom's Journal reprinted an article which lamented the fact that Haiti still "seems to hold its independence by a somewhat doubtful tenure.” Perhaps in response to US policy toward Haiti, the Haitian government determined that they
would no longer unreservedly welcome Americans into their country. Freedom's Journal reported in 1828 that Americans would thereafter be required to announce their presence in Haiti, or face considerable fines. “Those arriving must make a declaration of their arrival before a justice of the peace, stating their intention either to sojourn in the country, or merely to pass through it; and also what profession they intend to exercise."28 As a result of tense relations between the US and Haiti, there was little agreement on how African Americans should relate to the Haitian republic in the post-independence era. Thus, by the end of the 1820s, Haitian emigration was unreservedly deemed a failure. Reports in 1829 revealed that many of the remaining migrants were frustrated and disappointed. One traveler who visited extensively with a group of immigrants indicated that they were “generally, unpleasantly situated, and very much dissatisfied. They complained to me that the proprietors of the lands for whom they had laboured, for two years and a half, had entirely disappointed them ... and said they had rather be slaves in North Carolina, than to remain there under the treatment they had received since their arrival." He also argued that given the cultural differences between Haitians and African Americans, no further consideration should be given to emigration schemes: “From my short acquaintance with the Haytiens, and my observing their dispositions towards our American blacks amongst them, I am not disposed to encourage any free people of colour to go from the United States to settle in Hayti. ..."29 By 1829, John Russwurm revealed that endorsement of Haitian emigration had practically disappeared due to “unfavourable reports of those who have returned."30 However, the decline in support for Haitian emigration was not simply due to Haiti's internal problems, or the United States' complicated policies toward burgeoning republic - it also reflected larger trends among Northern Black activists who began to publicly distance themselves from emigrationist sentiment, especially after 1830. In an effort to bolster the movement for abolition and American citizenship, most Black activists turned away from emigration and Pan-Africanism and asserted their rights as Americans.31 Yet despite their rejection of emigration, Black leaders remained in solidarity with the notion of Haiti as a free and autonomous island nation. In 1837, the Colored American newspaper printed a letter from an emigrant in Port-au-Prince that celebrated Haiti's progress and potential in order to inspire feelings of pride within the Black community. The article emphasized the growth of political and social “The Black Republic” • 65 institutions and reminded readers that even though Haiti was an independent country governed by Black people, it was recognized throughout Europe as a free country. “The noble minded Haytians, having met all the conditions of, and achieved their own independence, - stand forth on solid basis, in all the glory of an INDEPENDENT NATION, and are acknowledged as such, by the leading Courts of Europe." In the following year, the Colored Amer again rejoiced in Haiti's accomplishments noting, in particular, the republic's increasing success in building their infrastructure including commerce and agricultural development, as well as the creation of schools, roads, and other institutions. The editor concluded that the government was moving swiftly toward its goals, and prophesied that the country would soon develop all of its natural power and wealth."32 As the 1830s progressed, however, Black activists became increasingly frustrated with Haiti's position in the international political scene. In particular, they were enraged by the US government's obstinate refusal to recognize Haiti's existence as an independent republic. Like most European nations, the United States elected not to extend diplomatic relations to Haiti during the immediate aftermath of the Haitian Revolution. But while France finally agreed to acknowledge Haitian independence in 1825, the United States, driven by Southern politicians' panic and intransigence, continued its policy of nonrecognition. In the wake of various slave revolts in the US, Southerners worried that recognizing Haiti would be a tacit endorsement of slave rebellion and therefore ferociously opposed the idea of establishing formal diplomatic relations with the Black republic.33 By the late 1830s, however, Black leaders' opposition to the government's stance was mounting. In fact, Black activists' strong endorsement of Haitian independence remained consistent throughout the antebellum era. Theirs was a position deeply connected to the Black freedom struggle in the United States, since the US' denial of Haiti not only threatened the notion of Black autonomy, but it also bolstered the South's mission to strengthen slavery. As a result, in 1837, Charles Ray, editor of the Colored American, expressed his frustration about the government's policy toward Haiti in the pages of his own newspaper. “In most other countries we have ministers, or at least consuls, to watch over the interests of our merchants; but to send a minister or consul to St. Domingo, would be so revolting to the feelings of our Southern brethren, that they would probably threaten to dissolve the Union....” In 1838, he issued another editorial emphasizing the importance of Haitian independence, and pleading with Black activists to pressure the US government to honor their status as a legitimate nation. Haiti must be acknowledged, and an honorable consular relation established ... Every patriotic and philanthropic citizen should
petition Congress for the recognition of Haitien Independence. If it is important that we should have amicable relations and interchange national courtesies with 66 · Alexander any nation, it is so in regard to Haiti, a country that has won its freedom and independence and established them against the world. The following year, the paper made a similar appeal focused on the need for Northern politicians to recognize Haiti's autonomy. As Ray explained, "It is our interest to acknowledge Haytian independence... if our northern representatives refuse to acknowledge Haytian independence, they will in these matters ... [be] submissive to the very whims of their southern task masters."34 Beyond the issue of Southern racism, Ray also argued that the United States' position was completely unjustified since Haiti had been independent for more than thirty years, they had established themselves as a democratic republic, and the US profited tremendously from their trade relationship with Haiti. ... we cannot but notice the unaccountable policy of our Government, towards Hayti. We are generally foremost in the acknowledgment of every Republic ... But here is a Republic of more than thirty years standing, which has maintained its independence, without invasion or insurrection. Their Constitution and laws, are modeled after our own - yet we have, at one Session after another, of our National Legislature, taxed our wits, for excuses not to acknowledge Hayti; until they having removed them all, we stand forth in the eyes of the world, without an apology for withholding this act of justice, from a neighbouring nation, and one with which we hold a commercial intercourse annually, amounting to several millions, and greater than most other foreign powers. The financial issue, in particular, remained a point of contestation within the Black leadership, since they clearly found the United States' policy hypocritical in that regard: how could the US justify strong trade relations, while simultaneously denying diplomatic recognition? Moreover, after the Haitian government imposed taxes on all commercial interactions with countries that refused to acknowledge them, the US position began to border on the absurd. “It is our interest to acknowledge Haitian independence, because . .. we actually pay one hundred and one thousand dollars per annum, rather than acknowledge her to be - what she is without our acknowledgment - an independent power.”35 Significantly, the Colored American newspaper used a third strategy to highlight the contradiction of the United States' policy. Ray argued that the government was, in fact, obligated to honor Haitian independence because the US had won its own independence during the Revolutionary War only due to the participation of soldiers from Saint Domingue. But there is another and a stronger reason why we should be foremost in recognizing Haytian independence - a reason which Hayti is too proud to urge, we too republican to remember - to which southern chivalry must yield, or acknowledge itself recreant to its own code of honor - a reason which goes home with tenfold force to the south, a great portion of which almost owes its very being, as a portion of the Union, to Haytian succor in "The Black Republic" · 67 an hour of peril. In our late war with Great Britain, it will be remembered that the most glorious event was the battle of New Orleans, on January 8th, 1815. ... In that action, 200 men or nearly ONE-SEVENTH PART OF THE TROOPS ENGAGED, WERE VOLUNTEERS FROM ST. DOMINGO! And these men, in Gen. Jackson's own words - "manifested great bravery" in the action.36 Despite the obvious logic in the Black leadership's argument, the US government remained stubbornly determined to uphold their position toward the Haitian republic. In an ongoing concession to the South and the law of Southern slavery, the US persisted in their nonsensical arrangement with Haiti; they continued to participate in commercial endeavors, but turned a blind eye toward the republic in all diplomatic matters. As a result, by the end of the 1830s, as Black activists and White abolitionists grew increasingly frustrated with governmental policy at home and abroad, they bombarded Congress with petitions demanding Haiti's recognition. In fact, between 1838 and 1839, Congress received more than 200 petitions in favor of Haitian independence.37 While petitioning was a form of political activism that Black leaders had used since the colonial era, it was a particularly strategic method in this case because it simultaneously achieved two goals. Not only did it force Congress to address the issue of Haiti, it also placed the issue of slavery on the Congressional agenda at a time when there was a "gag rule” in effect against all anti-slavery petitions.38 Southern politicians actually saw right through this attempted ruse, and responded angrily to this movement. Hugh Swinton Legaré of South Carolina argued, for example, that such petitions were equal to declarations of war on the South: “They are treason. Yes, sir, I pronounce the authors of such things traitors - traitors not to their country only, but to the whole human race."39 Southern opposition to Haiti increased when Congressman (and former President) John Quincy Adams petitioned Congress to recognize Haiti. Although Adams had not extended diplomatic relations to Haiti during his reign as President, in 1839 he was finally willing to concede his earlier views. In so doing, however, Adams suffered severe attacks from his colleagues. Following Adams' presentation of his petition, Congressman Henry A. Wise of Virginia "rose in reply." Wise vehemently
attacked the proposal, arguing that it was “part of the abolition scheme,” and was tantamount to recognizing “an insurrectionary republic on our Southern coast.”40 A lengthy battle ensued, in which Southern slaveholders successfully fought off abolitionists' efforts to force Congress to recognize Haiti. As a result, as the decade of the 1840s dawned, Jean Pierre Boyer and his fledgling republic remained diplomatically isolated from the United States. Perhaps due to their frustrating defeat in the halls of Congress, abolitionists were comparatively silent about Haiti in the 1840s. Yet Black activists did their best to keep Haiti's interests in the public discourse. In 1841, for example, James McCune Smith - abolitionist, suffragist, and physician - delivered a compelling 68 · Alexander speech about Haiti, in which he presented his own historical timeline, documenting the events of the Haitian Revolution. In some ways, it was a romantic praise-song of the revolution; but mostly, it was a subtle critique of the ways in which the Haitian republic was effectively manifesting democratic principles and the United States was not. In his conclusion, Smith suggested that Americans had something to learn from the Haitian example: “far from being scenes of indiscriminate massacre from which we should turn our eyes in horror, these revolutions constitute an epoch worthy of the anxious study of every American citizen.”41 Unfortunately, Smith's argument became more difficult to make in the years that followed. Beginning in 1843, there were a series of military coups in Haiti. President Boyer was driven into exile, and over the next several years there were numerous short-lived presidencies culminating in the election of Faustin Élie Soulouque in 1847. Once the political turmoil temporarily stabilized, Black activists began, again, to lodge their complaints about the US government's policy towards Haiti. As in previous years, critics clearly identified the link between Southern slaveholders' political power and the persistence of racism, both of which determined US relations with Haiti. In 1849, abolitionist and newspaper editor Samuel Ringgold Ward attacked the government for its blatantly racist policies. Now one of the "customs” of our Government is to refuse to acknowledge the independence of a Republic, the majority of whose citizens are black men, lest such an acknowledgement should offend negro haters in Washington by introducing a black minister into the society of the Capitol. This is the reason why our Government has not recognized the independence of Hayti, a Republic half a century old. A Republic, too, that has done more to prove its capacity for self government ... than the United States.42 Similarly, Frederick Douglass unabashedly blamed slaveholders, the system of slavery, and racism for the government's tenacious refusal to establish diplomatic relations with Haiti: “Our Government, under the influence of the violent slaveholders, has stubbornly refused to recognize Haiti, and thus severely injured the flourishing commerce we once carried on with that Republic ... This is really too contemptible for a Government that has any pretensions to common intelligence. It is paying rather too much to gratify the colorphobia of a few fanatics.” Just several months later, in a stunning critique of the “Slave Power,” the Southern political machine, Douglass again vented his frustration with the Haitian situation. “With the meanness, as well as the insolence of tyranny, it [the Slave Power] has compelled the federal government to abstain from acknowledging the neighbor republic of Haiti, where slaves have become freemen, and established an independent nation.”43 While Black activists continued to lambast the US government's nonrecognition of Haiti, and contrasted free democratic Haiti with the tyrannical slaveocracy in the southern United States, this argument became more difficult to make, as Faustin Soulouque's rule became increasingly despotic. Late in 1849, President Soulouque was named Emperor Faustin I, and was officially crowned