This is something I've became interested in after reading about Napoléon's attempt to reconquer Haiti and the expedition send by Charles X to force the Haitians to pay a 150 million indemnity. So in the early years of the Bourbon restoration Haiti was divided into two nations, the northern Kingdom and the southern republic; both states were pretty weak, with the northern monarchy unpopular and the southern Republic economically weak. The situation on the ground seemed ripe for a reconquest by France, yet for one reason or another (I'm guessing related to the Hundred days and its aftermath, including the allied occupation and liberation restoration), the French nver made another attempt. In fact, it wasn't until 1825 and the aforementioned expedition that France turned its attention back on her former colony. So what if France was able to make another attempt at reconquest? Would/could it be successful or would it end just as badly as the first? And if successful, would the French attempt to restore slavery again or perhaps continue the semi-feudal Corvée system of state labour established by "King" Henri I? Please discuss!
WI: A reconquest of Haiti by Restoration France?
- Thread starter Emperor Constantine
- Start date
Ricardolindo
Banned
I believe, that, the fact that Napoleon's attempted reconquest was a disaster discouraged more reconquest attempts.
twovultures
Donor
A major factor in the failed reconquest IOTL is yellow fever devastating the unseasoned French troops, and that doesn't look like it will change ITTL. There's certainly factors that could mitigate it, such as attacking in the dry season and preventing stagnant water from developing around military camps, but if these are done it will be by coincidence since no-one at the time actually knew that the disease was spread by mosquitoes.
Even without disease, the Haitians have weapons and if there is one thing that could unite North And South and all factions in Haitian society, it's the fear of being re-enslaved by the returning French. They would put up a ferocious fight.
Even without disease, the Haitians have weapons and if there is one thing that could unite North And South and all factions in Haitian society, it's the fear of being re-enslaved by the returning French. They would put up a ferocious fight.
If anything one would think that would make the Bourbons more eager to try a reconquest, no less. After all, if successful its yet another thing they would have succeeded at where Napoléon had failed.
What exactly do you mean by unseasoned troops? Men not used to fighting in the tropics, troops without any immunity/built-up tolerance to yellow fever or simply not used to fighting an insurgency?
twovultures
Donor
Exactly. The troops had no prior exposure to yellow fever, and so had no immunity. The ex-slaves had largely been previously exposed, either in Haiti itself or in Africa, and so would not be effected. The French troops on the other hand got sick with a deadly disease, and worse, got sick all at once so very large numbers were sick at a time and could not care for each other or receive proper individualized care. The death toll was horrific even without the casualties of violence.
Haiti even at the point of division was more fortified against external invasion than ever before. Henri had constant paranoia of French invasion and spent exorbitant funds on fortifications like the Citadelle La Ferrière as well as training armies. While the quality of these efforts is debatable, the French are definitely at a much worse position trying to invade than previously, when they had forces stationed already on the island. Boyer and Henri are also sane enough that they would unite to repel the French despite their differences; perhaps you could get some mulattos willing to ally with the French but it's not the right historical moment for that. All these factors, plus the fact that yellow fever is still there means that an invasion would do worse than the first IMO.
Hm, what about invading from Santo Domingo, with permission from Fernando VII? Would that be better or worse? And I can't imagine that the Haitian armies could compare to thousands of Napoléonic veterans, though they would know the terrain better. And I feel like an invasion of southern Haiti would be fairly easy, sense Boyer's policies ruined much of the southern economy; one would think that the elite there would be more willing to support a return of French power in exchange for the restoration of their plantations and estates. Now I can't get a way around yellow fever, considering the major difference in training and military power between France and (the) Haiti(s), I would think that France could establish some kind of control, even if they decide to work with the local elite and take a more hands-off approach.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Well, first off you're conducting a campaign over the central mountains and jungles, which is troublesome from European logistics and all the perfect terrain for irregular warfare by the Haitians against your supply system (There's a reason that pre-Revolution this was where the French slaves who wanted to escape the plantations went to live. Hunting down people who diden't want to be found was maddening). That's not going to bode well for an extended campaign in which your enemy's main strength is on the opposite landward side of your jump off point.
Haiti would fight to the very death while the Freach soldiers died from yellow fever and malaria, among others. Irregular warfare by the Haitians would be death by an thousand cuts to the Freach.
Worst case, you bankrupt France and the House of Bourbon is throw out of the nation for such an screw up, for such an manpower and waste of money.
Worst case, you bankrupt France and the House of Bourbon is throw out of the nation for such an screw up, for such an manpower and waste of money.
OK so basically it would be impossible for the Bourbons to reconquer Haiti? Well that bites. I guess the only way for a Bourbon Restoration-ruled Haiti would be if they inherited it from Napoléon. So, with that in mind, what would be the best POD to allow for a successful French reconquest AND reintroduction of slavery? Or at the very least just a successful restoration of French colonial rule?
You can't have both a sucessful french restoration in haiti and reintroduction of slavery. The haitians, if given no other option than the revival of the particularily brutal brand of slavery that was practiced, WILL fight until they, as a people, are extinguished.
France, in any reconquest scenario, needs to come as liberators and explicitly, in a way that the haitians will know to be true, show they aren't coming to make the haitians their slaves again, but rather, to embrace them as their french brethren, regardless of the difference in colour.
Which is impossible, given the fact that they are their own nation now. Can't especially come in as liberators when they're basically running their own country (even if one is notoriously corrupt and paranoid and the other is economically weak.) and you're essentially coming in to restore Haiti to French rule.
I feel like the best bet would be to allow Toussaint Louverture to remain as an autonomous French governor. I feel like that decision effectively signed the death warrant for French colonial rule in Saint-Domingue. However it would be difficult to prevent if for the above-mentioned reasons (not to mention that this would be the first such expedition so nobody truly knew what was going to happen to them.)
Long story short, I feel like the best POD to have a French Haiti, is simply for France to not lose Haiti.
Last edited:
Would the United States invoke the Monroe Doctrine over an attempted reconquest of Haiti? Perhaps not to the extent of war with France but at least a sharp diplomatic response.
Or are the 1820s too early and Haiti too distant?
Or are the 1820s too early and Haiti too distant?
During this period, the question of France taking back Haiti isn't so much "Does the US approve?" but "Does the UK approve?", given that the Royal Navy was the Monroe Doctrine at the time.
As for France holding Haiti, well there's always the option of weapons being "forgotten" at the docks.
FillyofDelphi
Banned
To be fair, in this particular circumstances I think the US presidents in power at the time won't be keen on authorizing giving large quantities of guns to militant black populations, particularly since it would require the operation to be based out of New Orleans. They aren't exactly the most sympathetic to former slaves violently securing total self-rule, after all, particularly down in Dixie.
Marc
Donor
Precisely so. A depressing read is learning just what was the official American attitude, particularly Jefferson's. Heck, we didn't recognize Haitian independence until 1862 - although we did have large scale, quite profitable, business relationships with Haiti for many decades (American history, thy name is hypocrisy).
They may have “learned and forgotten nothing” but they’re not total idiots. If the man who conquered Europe couldn’t subdue the Haitians, they know they probably won’t either.
Which is basically impossible. France would have to either refuse to restore slavery or leave Saint-Dominique alone as the only colony to escape such a fate, which could in turn trigger more slave revolts on the other islands. It was more or less all or nothing.
I think @Superninja76 meant the 1802 attempt, not my theoretical Bourbon intervention.
As for the Louverture idea, it would definitely work for the short-term but after his death? At best some of his more radical lieutenants would simply take power and at worse the entire thing falls back into civil war, which I suppose could be a good thing for France, as it would give then the opportunity to invade under the guise of restoring order.
Another question then; why was Haiti able to resist the reimposition of slavery and ultimately declare independence instead of being reconquered/reinslaved like the rest of the French West Indies? Was it better organization, a large population to resist, was slavery simply that much worse there then on the other islands, another reason I'm not thinking of or simply a combination of everything above.