AHC: Haiti is not a terrible place to live

There were Caribbean colonization attempts OTL. They tended to fare somewhat poorly. But even if you succeed, you get the same problem as Liberia: the "colonists" have no real connection to the people they're settling among and they don't necessarily have the skills to adapt readily to the new conditions. There's a reason Liberia is not exactly a shining paradise, even by modern African standards.

I considered this, but there would be very real differences between Liberia and Haiti in this case. Liberia was a true colonization. Freetown and Monrovia simply did not exist before the African American colonists arrived. They were not joining into existing societies, so the Americo-Liberians immediately became a distinct ruling class isolated from indigenous populations. The difference would be comparable to white settlement of Native American lands vs. the American immigrant experience.

Also, Haiti falling within the US sphere of influence would offer some protection from European imperial ambitions that Liberia did not have (admittedly while obviously opening them up to American imperial ambitions). Proximity to the US would also mean Haiti would be significantly less isolated than Liberia allowing easier assistance from America. In particular, I could see black technocrats educated in American universities moving to Haiti to help the country make necessary agricultural, land management, and political reforms that would be crucial to increasing its chance of success. Would they relocate? Would they change Haiti rather than be changed by Haiti? That is much more speculative.

Again, this is a long shot, but I'm not convinced that keeping Toussaint fundamentally changes things. I think he would have ruled much in the way his OTL successors did resulting in the same economic mismanagement and political instability. In reality, the social situation prior to independence was just so poisonous that the country's future seems bleak with practically any roll of the dice.
 
We might also consider what a delay of the French Revolution might have done for Haiti. Could a more gradual abolition of slavery say between 1800 and 1850 have produced better results? If we take out the French Revolution, all sorts of possibilities open up. Maybe France holds on to Louisiana much longer and Haiti becomes part of some kind of francophone North American/Caribbean federation.

EDIT: Actually Lousiana was ceded to Spain in 1763, so no French Revolution means they somehow would have to get it back first... Never mind.
 
According to a docu on Planète+, Joséphine who was born on... La Martinique (maybe) of the colonials elite there and became wife of Napoléon may have played an hand in the whole mess.

Nice person, clever and all, but the upbringing may have been a factor, and she may have ended pushing Napoléon to work... on 'restoring the situation there'.

Maybe have her not been chosen or something...
 
I considered this, but there would be very real differences between Liberia and Haiti in this case. Liberia was a true colonization. Freetown and Monrovia simply did not exist before the African American colonists arrived. They were not joining into existing societies, so the Americo-Liberians immediately became a distinct ruling class isolated from indigenous populations. The difference would be comparable to white settlement of Native American lands vs. the American immigrant experience.

What makes the Hatian situation different then? Haitian former slaves would be massively different from American former slaves too.
 
What would be the best POD post-independence from France for Haiti to not end up the spectacular clusterfuck of coups, dictators, and civil wars that it has been OTL?

Have the US accept their annexation request. Boom.

This is really misinformed : how do you think a populous country founded on the very idea of being a black republic is going to react to being annexed by a country that, even if it doesn't practice slavery anymore, segregate black people? And on the other hand how do you convince this still racist country to annex a black republic?
Annexion by the US is often seen as a panacea : you have to understand that it is immigrants that bring wealth and that Haïti is already very settled.
On the subject I think that you have to cancel the debt of independence as soon as possible but I have no idea how to achieve that : maybe with Louis-Philipe?

Well, given that Haiti is the one who asked to be annexed, just fine.
 
According to a docu on Planète+, Joséphine who was born on... La Martinique (maybe) of the colonials elite there and became wife of Napoléon may have played an hand in the whole mess.

Josephine certainly seems to have played a role in his decision to side with the planters.

I considered this, but there would be very real differences between Liberia and Haiti in this case. Liberia was a true colonization. Freetown and Monrovia simply did not exist before the African American colonists arrived. They were not joining into existing societies, so the Americo-Liberians immediately became a distinct ruling class isolated from indigenous populations. The difference would be comparable to white settlement of Native American lands vs. the American immigrant experience.
I'm just not sure how the importation of American racial attitudes (esp. the "one-drop" rule) would play out. A lot of post-independence Haitian history was dominated by the conflict between blacks and coloreds; I can easily see the African-Americans forming their own separate group, and merely adding another side to that struggle.

Again, this is a long shot, but I'm not convinced that keeping Toussaint fundamentally changes things. I think he would have ruled much in the way his OTL successors did resulting in the same economic mismanagement and political instability. In reality, the social situation prior to independence was just so poisonous that the country's future seems bleak with practically any roll of the dice.
It's certainly possible (Toussaint definitely had his issues), but I was thinking more in terms of avoiding the French reconquest; Toussaint seems to have been happy to keep Haiti as nominally part of the French Republic, while de facto independent. If Napoleon decides not to press him on the "de facto independent" part, I could see Haiti evolving on a less problematic path. If nothing else, it would be spared the devastation of the war, and probably the massive debts they had to take on afterwards.
 
Ripple effect: If Haiti becomes a decent place to live, it will be a blow to the slavery lobby in the United States and elsewhere, who OTL used the failure of Haiti as "proof" that blacks were unable to govern themselves. If a society of black slaves both overthrows their masters and establishes a stable and prosperous state, it will be a massive blow to the ideology of slavery.
 
Ripple effect: If Haiti becomes a decent place to live, it will be a blow to the slavery lobby in the United States and elsewhere, who OTL used the failure of Haiti as "proof" that blacks were unable to govern themselves. If a society of black slaves both overthrows their masters and establishes a stable and prosperous state, it will be a massive blow to the ideology of slavery.

Heck, I can immagine some official or not expedition one day from US coasts to smash this...
 
Heck, I can immagine some official or not expedition one day from US coasts to smash this...

Eh, if they didn't try and take failed-state Haiti OTL, they never would. It wasn't really a conspiracy, those who supported slavery almost always believed the racial nonsense they peddled.

The country might be doomed by refusal of the European powers and the US to trade equitably with them anyway, though.
 
Eh, if they didn't try and take failed-state Haiti OTL, they never would. It wasn't really a conspiracy, those who supported slavery almost always believed the racial nonsense they peddled.

The country might be doomed by refusal of the European powers and the US to trade equitably with them anyway, though.

Well, one can argue a FAILED Haiti serve them... 'look at how they do it, AH!'...

true, true.
 
What makes the Hatian situation different then? Haitian former slaves would be massively different from American former slaves too.
In this case, I wasn't referring to the differences between the native population and the immigrants so much as the pattern of immigration. In the case of Liberia, the Americo-Liberian immigrants founded new cities separated from the indigenous populations. Resettled American blacks in Haiti would likely be moving into existing communities rather than founding totally new ones. That doesn't mean that they couldn't become ghettoized, but I think it gives them a better shot of integration within the existing culture rather than just building two parallel cultures.

I'm just not sure how the importation of American racial attitudes (esp. the "one-drop" rule) would play out. A lot of post-independence Haitian history was dominated by the conflict between blacks and coloreds; I can easily see the African-Americans forming their own separate group, and merely adding another side to that struggle.
This is a very good point. I think it would largely depend on which African Americans decided to make the move. Certainly people like Frederick Douglass would be trying to reconcile those different groups. The question is whether their earnest attempts to bring people together would actually bring about a cultural change or if they would be written off by the different groups as naive idealists.


It's certainly possible (Toussaint definitely had his issues), but I was thinking more in terms of avoiding the French reconquest; Toussaint seems to have been happy to keep Haiti as nominally part of the French Republic, while de facto independent. If Napoleon decides not to press him on the "de facto independent" part, I could see Haiti evolving on a less problematic path. If nothing else, it would be spared the devastation of the war, and probably the massive debts they had to take on afterwards.
This is a good point. However, I think the Haitian government probably would've racked up crippling debt all on its own as dictatorships in impoverished countries tend to do.

There's another fact brought up by the consequences of no attempt at reconquest. I found this on the US State Department website:

Under President Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, the United States cut off aid to L’Ouverture and instead pursued a policy to isolate Haiti, fearing that the Haitian revolution would spread to the United States. These concerns were in fact unfounded, as the fledgling Haitian state was more concerned with its own survival than with exporting revolution. Nevertheless, Jefferson grew even more hostile after L’Ouverture’s successor, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, ordered the execution of whites remaining after the Napoleonic attempts to reconquer St. Domingue and reimpose slavery (French defeat led to the Louisiana Purchase.) Jefferson refused to recognize Haitian independence, a policy to which U.S. Federalists also acquiesced. Although France recognized Haitian independence in 1825, Haitians would have to wait until 1862 for the United States to recognize Haiti’s status as a sovereign, independent nation.

I wonder to what degree US relations with Haiti might have changed if the French had opted for a more conciliatory policy and to what degree American-French relations would have been impacted.

EDIT:

Found this on Wikipedia:
However in Congress the proponents of an embargo had the clear advantage. Though the policy of John Adams was more constrained than others, it was still in favor of an arms embargo on Haïti. Federalists were in favor of his policy because they felt it would help to solidify U.S. dominance over the politics and economy of the country, and would help to bring security to white people in the South who were fearful of a hemisphere-wide slave revolt. However, many white people in the South thought Adams' pragmatic policy went too far and was equivalent to full-scale relations with Haïti. While such white people ignored oppression, exploitation and atrocities against enslaved Africans by white slave-traders, and by white slave-owners in Haiti and the USA (and indeed, carried out such abuses themselves), they were adamantly against reaching an agreement with people who had committed atrocities against slave-owners.[7] When George Logan introduced a bill that would outlaw all trade with Saint-Domingue that was not under French control, it signalled a shift to the side of the hard-liners. Weapons could only be aboard ships for their own protection, and any violators of the embargo would lose their cargo as well as their ships.[8] The embargo bill introduced by George Logan was adopted in February 1806, and then renewed again the next year, until it expired in April 1808. Another embargo had been adopted in 1807 and this one lasted until 1810, though trade did not again take place until the 1820s.[9] However despite this, official recognition did not happen until 1862, after the southern states had seceded from the United States.[10]

So the slaughter that accompanied the French expedition seems to have provided a lot of the steam for the embargoes against Haiti from the US.
 
Last edited:
Top