Spanish Hispaniola

[Ricardolindo]

What if Spain had kept all of Hispaniola? I highly doubt the Spaniards would ever have implemented the particularly brutal and intensive kind of slavery the French did. Without it and the Haitian Revolution, would slavery be accepted for longer?
Regardless, what is now Haiti would be more racially mixed and richer. Hispaniola would likely still be united, though whether it would be independent or part of the United States (if not butterflied) or Spain is debatable.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

What if Spain had kept all of Hispaniola? I highly doubt the Spaniards would ever have implemented the particularly brutal and intensive kind of slavery the French did.

That is one hell of a claim, and it needs substantial evidence.

But leave it aside for the moment.

Without it and the Haitian Revolution, would slavery be accepted for longer?

The Haitian revolution was not a result of some unusual degree of brutality, or we would not have seen slave revolts in every single slave society in the Americas. The revolution was impactful because it was successful, and it was successful- in large part- because of the unique disarray of the colonisers.

It is one hundred percent plausible to think that even if we draw a butterfly net over Europe that the Peninsular War and resulting civil unrest through the Spanish colonies would have given the enslaved people of Santo Domingo a similar opportunity as arose in the 1790s.

Though the absence of a Haitian republic would of course have interesting consequences for the rebels in New Granada.

Regardless, what is now Haiti would be more racially mixed and richer.

A third massive claim with no supporting evidence.

Hispaniola would likely still be united, though whether it would be independent or part of the United States (if not butterflied) or Spain is debatable.

And a fourth.


This is an extremely complicated and emotive subject, and I think it requires much more care and forethought before you make an argument.

 

[Ricardolindo]

That is one hell of a claim, and it needs substantial evidence.

But leave it aside for the moment.



The Haitian revolution was not a result of some unusual degree of brutality, or we would not have seen slave revolts in every single slave society in the Americas. The revolution was impactful because it was successful, and it was successful- in large part- because of the unique disarray of the colonisers.

It is one hundred percent plausible to think that even if we draw a butterfly net over Europe that the Peninsular War and resulting civil unrest through the Spanish colonies would have given the enslaved people of Santo Domingo a similar opportunity as arose in the 1790s.

Though the absence of a Haitian republic would of course have interesting consequences for the rebels in New Granada.



A third massive claim with no supporting evidence.





And a fourth.


This is an extremely complicated and emotive subject, and I think it requires much more care and forethought before you make an argument.

As the Spaniards never implemented such intensive slavery in the eastern two thirds of Hispaniola, I don't see why they would do it in the western third. What is now the Dominican Republic had slavery in a much lesser degree and a much larger white population, creating a mestizo population.

 

[Charles EP M.]

As I understand it, Spain didn't have much control over Hispaniola after a while - which is part of how & why France nabbed part of it - and so any relatively more restrained slavery & rule (I'm assuming this is true as I dunno) would surely have to be seen in that context, that the Spanish couldn't be worse. If they're able to hold the entire island and see off the French, they're stronger and so the way they run things is likely harsher.

A slave revolt is inevitable because they happened in a bunch of places and so It Can Happen Here, which I could see being successful if it happens during a war Spain's losing in the Americas - though then the British Empire (or whoever) may say "you're our colony now, get back to the plantations".

 

[Ricardolindo]

As I understand it, Spain didn't have much control over Hispaniola after a while - which is part of how & why France nabbed part of it - and so any relatively more restrained slavery & rule (I'm assuming this is true as I dunno) would surely have to be seen in that context, that the Spanish couldn't be worse. If they're able to hold the entire island and see off the French, they're stronger and so the way they run things is likely harsher.

A slave revolt is inevitable because they happened in a bunch of places and so It Can Happen Here, which I could see being successful if it happens during a war Spain's losing in the Americas - though then the British Empire (or whoever) may say "you're our colony now, get back to the plantations".

The western third of Hispaniola was captured by France because it was underpopulated. This was partially Spain's own fault as they relocated the inhabitants in the early 17th century because they were angry they were trading with the Dutch, read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devastaciones_de_Osorio. However, I think that to keep it, Spain merely has to do better in the Nine Year's War.

 

[Gary Oswald]

I was typing this when @Ricardolindo pre-empted me and said a similar thing above.

You need to avoid the Devastations of Osorio, an early 17th century Spanish order to their settlers to leave what is Modern Haiti, to move towards Santo Domingo so they wouldn't be trading with heretics.

They literally burned down cattle ranches and sugar plantations to get their people to follow that order. That 100% changed the economic history of the island, 85% of the cattle owned by the Western settlers either died or went feral and the decline of the sugar industry within spanish carribean can be dated to that event.

Which is why I question the slavery claim. Without the devastations of osario the pivot from sugar to cattle might not be as large a one so you might well see the same slave history. On the other hand, the existence of cattle ranches and the land they take up pre-dates the devastations. So if they're important enough economically they might swallow up land and prevent a full plantation economy.

Something more like Cuba, where are there still lots of slaves but it's a more mixed economy so they don't outnumbers the settlers like they did in Haiti or Jamaica might be more likely. (Cuba's slave economy in some ways also was only cemented post the haitian revolution and as a reaction to it)

But I think looking at the Dominican republic and assuming that's what all of spanish hispaniola will look like is incomplete because the DR's economy was so changed by the abandonment of Haiti.

 

[Gary Oswald]

A slave revolt is inevitable because they happened in a bunch of places and so It Can Happen Here, which I could see being successful if it happens during a war Spain's losing in the Americas - though then the British Empire (or whoever) may say "you're our colony now, get back to the plantations".

Yes, but there's slave revolts and there's the Haitian revolution.

The former happened like everywhere, the latter has only happened once in the history of the world. The biggest change of no French Haiti, is absolutely going to be that one of the most significant events in world history won't happen in the same way as it did in OTL and with the same factors involved. The way in which the French ran their colonies and what was happening to the French back home is the reason why the revolution happened the way it did, it wouldn't have happened without their being so many slaves compared to white settlers, so many free blacks and so much internal feuding.

And well if you're talking about 'why did the Atlantic slave trade die out in the 19th century' that conversation starts and ends with Haiti.

I respect @SenatorChickpea a lot and I see why he thinks the original post was under sourced (and I certainly raised my eyebrows at the idea Haitian slavery was unusually brutal rather than merely unusually extensive). But I think the sequence of events that @Ricardolindo sketched out in the OP is plausible.

That is:

No devastations of Osorio
No French colony in Hispaniola
Spanish Hispaniola has a more mixed economy with brutal slave plantations intermixed with cattle ranches and so less slaves per white settler.
This means any slave revolution is less likely to be successful, given that no others in the new world were.
Without a successful slave revolution terrifying every slave owner in the New World, the slave trade continues for longer.
Hispaniola emerges as a united country among the lines of Cuba, Brazil or Puerto Rico rather than along the lines of Haiti.
Because of this it's almost certainly likely to be richer because the rest of the world has less motives to fuck it over than they do a black slave's republic.

Like do I think that's the only way that POD would turn out? No, there's lot of ways it could. Do I buy the logic as a possible result of it? Yes, I do,

 

[Ricardolindo]

Yes, but there's slave revolts and there's the Haitian revolution.

The former happened like everywhere, the latter has only happened once in the history of the world. The biggest change of no French Haiti, is absolutely going to be that one of the most significant events in world history won't happen in the same way as it did in OTL and with the same factors involved. The way in which the French ran their colonies and what was happening to the French back home is the reason why the revolution happened the way it did, it wouldn't have happened without their being so many slaves compared to white settlers, so many free blacks and so much internal feuding.

And well if you're talking about 'why did the Atlantic slave trade die out in the 19th century' that conversation starts and ends with Haiti.

I respect @SenatorChickpea a lot and I see why he thinks the original post was under sourced (and I certainly raised my eyebrows at the idea Haitian slavery was unusually brutal rather than merely unusually extensive). But I think the sequence of events that @Ricardolindo sketched out in the OP is plausible.

That is:

No devastations of Osorio
No French colony in Hispaniola
Spanish Hispaniola has a more mixed economy with brutal slave plantations intermixed with cattle ranches and so less slaves per white settler.
This means any slave revolution is less likely to be successful, given that no others in the new world were.
Without a successful slave revolution terrifying every slave owner in the New World, the slave trade continues for longer.
Hispaniola emerges as a united country among the lines of Cuba, Brazil or Puerto Rico rather than along the lines of Haiti.
Because of this it's almost certainly likely to be richer because the rest of the world has less motives to fuck it over than they do a black slave's republic.

Like do I think that's the only way that POD would turn out? No, there's lot of ways it could. Do I buy the logic as a possible result of it? Yes, I do,

Good post but, as I said in the OP, I'm not sure Hispaniola would be independent. If the Spanish-American War is not butterflied, the US may take it, along with Puerto Rico. Alternatively, it may still be part of Spain today. Remember Spain kept Cuba and Puerto Rico for longer than their other American colonies. The same may happen with Hispaniola.

 

[Gary Oswald]

Good post but, as I said in the OP, I'm not sure Hispaniola would be independent. If the Spanish-American War is not butterflied, the US may take it, along with Puerto Rico. Alternatively, it may still be part of Spain today. Remember Spain kept Cuba and Puerto Rico for longer than their other American colonies. The same may happen with Hispaniola.

Possibly. If we're looking at a POD in the 1500s, there's a lot of room for the Spanish Empire to be less of a mess. I think given the appalling misrule of OTL's Spanish control of Hispaniola, beginning with the devastation and not ending even after they twice lost the colony and were invited back in by local elites, any Spain that remains in control would have to be unrecognisable compared to our timeline.

Likewise any USA who'd annex Hispaniola, rather than just occupy it and bring it into its economic orbit, as in OTL, would have to not be our USA, given the strong objections to the OTL proposals in that direction.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Possibly. If we're looking at a POD in the 1500s, there's a lot of room for the Spanish Empire to be less of a mess. I think given the appalling misrule of OTL's Spanish control of Hispaniola, beginning with the devastation and not ending even after they twice lost the colony and were invited back in by local elites, any Spain that remains in control would have to be unrecognisable compared to our timeline.

Likewise any USA who'd annex Hispaniola, rather than just occupy it and bring it into its economic orbit, as in OTL, would have to not be our USA, given the strong objections to the OTL proposals in that direction.

In our timeline, Spain only lost San Domingo because of a coup in late 1821 by its lieutenant governor. They had been able to suppress previous plots.
As for an US annexation, they did annex Puerto Rico.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Rereading your post and mine I did bite your head off, and I apologise. I do think that the 'Haitian slavery was unusually bad' claim really doesn't stand up, but it coloured the way I read the rest of your post.

That being said, I think you're falling into the trap of thinking that the revolution- and Haitian history generally- was only important insofar as it affected Hispaniola.

A Caribbean, a Western Hemisphere, a world without that revolution is going to be profoundly different by 1898. 1776, 1789, 1917, 1979- these were not localised events, and neither was the only successful overthrow of a slave society.

For one thing, as I alluded to above- the Latin American independence wars were both directly influenced by Haitian money and guns and indirectly influenced by its shaping of the way they thought about slavery.

In other words, the consequences for world empires will kick in far earlier than the late nineteenth century.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

They will also, of course, kick in before the Revolution doesn't happen- if French colonial policy isn't shifted by this, cultural discussions of slavery will certainly be affected by the absence of the colony that played the largest role in discourse around abolitionism.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Again, the more I think about it: the absence of the Haitian revolution and its effect upon things like African and Atlantic-African intellectual movements, racial paranoia in white capitalist societies, abolitionism in the slaver empires and, not least, the effects upon untold thousands of lives in West Africa and the Caribbean from what could well be longer-lasting slavery.... yeah, whether Spain or 'the USA' ends up owning Hispaniola really is the least interesting aspect of this POD.

 

[Ricardolindo]

Again, the more I think about it: the absence of the Haitian revolution and its effect upon things like African and Atlantic-African intellectual movements, racial paranoia in white capitalist societies, abolitionism in the slaver empires and, not least, the effects upon untold thousands of lives in West Africa and the Caribbean from what could well be longer-lasting slavery.... yeah, whether Spain or 'the USA' ends up owning Hispaniola really is the least interesting aspect of this POD.

Considering your use of quotes, do you doubt the USA would exist in this timeline?

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Depends when your POD is.

If it's in the 1500s then I'm not prepared to speculate what the political landscape of North America looks like in the 1800s.

 

[Gary Oswald]

Again, the more I think about it: the absence of the Haitian revolution and its effect upon things like African and Atlantic-African intellectual movements, racial paranoia in white capitalist societies, abolitionism in the slaver empires and, not least, the effects upon untold thousands of lives in West Africa and the Caribbean from what could well be longer-lasting slavery.... yeah, whether Spain or 'the USA' ends up owning Hispaniola really is the least interesting aspect of this POD.

I think the problem is it's too big a change to talk about in a thread like this.

The Haitian revolution changed the political decision making of every major country in the world, in order to chase down the effects you have to know a lot about a lot of things.

Cuba and the American South were influenced hugely by the arrivals of Haitian emigres telling tales of the horrors of santo domingo, like I hinted above a lot of the 19th century Cuban slave system dates from that interaction. British abolitionism was boosted hugely by the army's experience in Haiti, that's really when the sea change happens which means the Atlantic Slave Trade will last longer without the Haitian revolution, I maintain it was the single largest cause of that ending. As you say yourself, France's foreign policy was long influenced by owning the most profitable colony in the world, they're going to make different decisions without that. As you also say, Haiti as a black republic played an important role in a lot of black intellectual thinking, Garvey recruited heavily from Haiti for instance. And Latin American rebels relied massively on Haiti as the Arsenal of Freedom where they could recruit armed men and buy weapons. A later blockade of Africa almost certainly means a later scramble for Africa, if that even happens in the same way and a slower decline of the slaving kingdoms like Ashanti and Dahomey. Would Liberia happen without Haiti, is another question? Would the Brazilian deportations of free blacks to Africa?

To what extent was the other, unsuccessful, slave revolutions of the time period influenced by the Haitians. How would a lack of emancipation order change France's relationship with it's other colonies. Would you still see such fierce fighting in St. Lucia or the Seychelles declaring themselves independent, etc?

And none of this is butterflies this is direct consequences. And butterflies probably means some of these situations won't even arise, Dahomey might not form, the Seychelles might never become French etc.

So it gets a bit dizzying. And you quickly leave historical speculation into, 'the entire world is different anything can go, Paraguay can end up ruling Australia, it's just fantasy now'.

Which is fine for a story but not really for a thread like this.

Which is why I think it's tempting to just go butterfly net, focus in. What does this Hispaniola look like without these experiences, economically demographically, politically?

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Wise words.