When the Dominican Republic Returned to the Crown

It is extremely rare to ever find an example or even the slightest hope of a colony that has declared independence and embraced republicanism coming back to the embrace of the monarchy of its ancestral homeland. Yet, that is exactly what happened to the Dominican Republic. To understand why, we must take a brief look back at the historical background of the country. The island of Santo Domingo, originally Spanish, came to be shared by France and Spain until the Peace of Basel saw Spain relinquish total control of the island to the French. Not everyone was fond of that and feelings only grew worse after the Haitian revolt when the formerly Spanish half of the island was invaded by Haiti, sacking towns and massacring people. With the Napoleonic Wars raging, Britain assisted the Spaniards in breaking away and reasserting their colonial ties with the Kingdom of Spain. Some wanted independence, but there was no consensus on the issue. Most seemed more concerned with what they were against than what they were for and it became more and more clear that action would decide the day. The pro-independence faction acted first when Jose Nunez de Caceres declared independence from Spain with the idea of applying for annexation by the republic of Gran Colombia under Simon Bolivar.

However, before there could be any progress on that front (and it is doubtful that Gran Colombia could have done much to prevent the coming disaster) the Haitians invaded again and the people of Santo Domingo got a foretaste of what later generations would experience under communism. The Haitians trumpeted their abolition of slavery but promptly went about making slaves of everyone, nationalizing almost all private property. All major estates were confiscated, most of the property of the Church was confiscated and all the property of the Spanish Crown was confiscated and nationalized as well. Similar to what would be done over a century later with the communal rice farms of Pol Pot’s Cambodia, almost all industry was shut down other than sugar and coffee production, the university was closed and most schools were shut down as everyone was either drafted into the army or forced to labor on the nationalized plantations. The Dominicans who were conscripted were not paid and forced to loot their own countrymen in order to survive and huge reparations payments (known as “tribute”) was forcefully extracted by Haiti. Most of the White Spaniards fled the country and as the economy flat-lined and taxes imposed rose higher and higher, even the freed Blacks began to rebel. Even many of the Haitians groaned under the oppression of their commander Jean-Pierre Boyer.

Pedro Santana

In 1843, Boyer and his regime were finally overthrown and the republicans who looked with admiration on the United States seized the initiative and declared the independence of the Dominican Republic, enacting a constitution in 1844 that was very similar to the American model. However, given what had happened so recently, most in power had no delusion that they could survive on their own but would have to be protected by some foreign power to ward off another Haitian invasion. Two factions soon emerged; Pedro Santana, commander of the army, favored restoring the Spanish Crown while Buenaventura Baez, who later became President, first favored annexation by France and, when France rejected the notion, looked to the United States. General Pedro Santana y Familias was the primary advocate of reunion with Spain. A wealthy rancher and talented military commander, he became the first President of the Dominican Republic but planned on it being only a temporary position. He had been instrumental in driving out the Haitians and was viewed with admiration or at least a healthy respect by most of his countrymen. When Baez became president, devoting himself to trying to get the Dominican Republic annexed to the United States, he drove the country into bankruptcy and was finally overthrown in a coup at which point Santana assumed power.

To stabilize the country and guard against any aggression from Haiti, Santana formally approached the Kingdom of Spain with the offer to return the Dominican Republic to the Spanish Empire. Naturally, not being in the best of circumstances itself and wary of the United States, Spain had not been quick to jump at the opportunity to have the territory back. However, by 1861 the United States was embroiled in a civil war and not in a position to get belligerent about the enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine. Doing so against Spain might provoke the French and British Empires into recognizing the southern Confederacy and going to war against the United States in support of Spain. So, on March 18, 1861 Her Catholic Majesty Queen Isabella II of Spain was formally declared sovereign over the former Dominican Republic and the Cross of Burgundy waved over Santo Domingo once again. It was the only time that a Spanish colonial possession would return to Spain after having gained independence. At the same time, the Empire of Brazil was being provoked into war with republican Uruguay and later Paraguay while in Mexico conservative forces were making progress in persuading the Emperor of the French to intervene on their behalf and eventually restore the Mexican Empire. It seemed that while the United States was at war with itself, monarchy was on the march across the New World.

Santana becomes Governor-General

Of course, there were problems as some in Santo Domingo staunchly opposed the return of the Spanish Crown to the island. One rebellion was put down and then another invasion by Haiti, led by a rebel Dominican, was defeated and its leader executed. Santana was sworn in as Governor-General of the colony but by the next year had resigned due to his frustration at having less power as the representative of Queen Isabella II than he had previously enjoyed as president/dictator. The military measures to secure the colony and regain land previously taken by Haiti also necessitated measures which upset many locals and the introduction of trade restrictions and a tobacco monopoly upset many of the wealthy elites. Rebels also began spreading rumors that Spain was planning to legalize slavery again in Santo Domingo, Cuba and Puerto Rico which many people stubbornly believed despite numerous explicit announcements from the Spanish government that this was totally untrue and would never happen. Finally, when Spanish forces drove out the last of the Haitian enclaves in the colony, Haiti officially abandoned neutrality and began to support the rebels in a major uprising, starting in 1863 known as the “Restoration War”. The rebels also appealed for help from the United States but, with the civil war there at its height, there was nothing the government in Washington could do.

At first, General Santana, who had been given the title of Marquis of Carreras by Queen Isabella II, was in command of the Spanish forces opposing the rebels but despite his high reputation, he proved unable to stem the tide. After disobeying orders to concentrate his forces for a decisive battle, Santana was dismissed and ordered to Cuba to face a court-martial but he died in the summer of 1864 before that could happen. Under the Spanish General Jose de la Gandara y Navarro the situation immediately improved. He began a determined counter-offensive against the rebels and soon had forced them into a desperate position as evidenced by the fact that they began calling for peace and offering to discuss terms. It seemed that the Crown of Spain was on the cusp of total victory in Santo Domingo. However, events overseas, in both Europe and North America were working against the Spanish army in Santo Domingo. In Spain itself, opposition to the war was widespread. In short, Spain simply didn’t see it as being worthwhile as the amount of blood and treasure being expended was too high for the very modest gain that their half of the island produced. For the Spanish, Santo Domingo was proving to be more trouble than it was worth. Furthermore, American intervention was also a growing concern as it became clear that the Union forces would be victorious against the southern Confederates and once that was done, it could be expected for the U.S. government to order Spain out of Santo Domingo at which point all of their effort would have been in vain. It seemed far better to cut their losses and get out before any more was wasted.

In North America, on April 9, 1865 Confederate General Robert E. Lee surrendered to Union forces under General Ulysses S. Grant, effectively marking the end of the civil war in the United States. There was no longer any doubt as to the outcome of any effort to restore monarchy in the western hemisphere. On March 3, 1865 HM Queen Isabella II of Spain formally annulled the annexation of the Dominican Republic and by May the Spanish army on the island began evacuating, the last leaving in July. It was, perhaps, short-sighted of Spain to abandon a clearly obtainable victory, without thinking of the long-term consequences. However, in light of the U.S. victory in the War Between the States, there is little doubt that the Spanish would have been forced out if they had not withdrawn willingly. An example was soon seen in Mexico where American pressure forced France to abandon Mexico after which U.S. support ensured a republican victory. It was a time of high hopes dashed for monarchists when, within just a few years, the Dominican Republic had returned to loyalty to the Spanish Crown, an empire was revived in Mexico and with aspirations of further expansion into Central America and possibly Ecuador and with the Empire of Brazil standing out as the dominant power in South America only to have it all come to an end with republicanism resurgent. For the Kingdom of Spain, while Santo Domingo might not have been of great benefit, its loss proved more damaging than most realized. The Spanish withdrawal provided an inspiration for republican rebels in Cuba and Puerto Rico that if a rebellion could be mounted and if they could gain the sympathy and support of the United States, they too could break away from Spain.

What many failed to realize was that claiming independence is a far cry from actually being capable of being independent and most of these countries ultimately traded one imperial ruler for another. In the case of the Dominican Republic, independence brought considerable instability and economic hardship (due almost entirely to government interference and mismanagement) which ultimately ended in threats of European intervention in the name of debt collection. American President Teddy Roosevelt stepped in to prevent this, putting the United States in charge of customs for the Dominican Republic in 1905. In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson ordered the military occupation of the Dominican Republican after political instability there and the country remained under American occupation until 1922. However, the U.S. kept a close eye on local politics and American military occupation returned in 1963 when President Lyndon Johnson ordered troops in to prevent a communist takeover of the country. A little more than a year later, they were withdrawn but certainly few could argue that the Dominican Republican has been much of a success nor has it been very truly independent since breaking, again, from the Crown of Spain. On a more optimistic note, however, if the country could return to loyalty to the Crown once, perhaps it can do so again and set a different kind of example for its neighbors.

Republican Brutality on Guadeloupe

One of the most reprehensible figures of the West Indies in the French Revolutionary Wars was Victor Hugues. A native of Marseille, his family moved to Santo Domingo but fled back to France because of the Haitian Revolt. Victor Hugues got in good with the Jacobin Club, was appointed to the Committee of Public Salvation in La Rochelle and finally in 1794 was sent to be governor of the island of Guadeloupe with orders to carry out the abolition of slavery passed by the revolutionary regime. This was, not surprisingly, opposed by the planter class and they, along with any other French royalists, quickly allied themselves with the British in trying to hold back the forces of the revolution. The British, as soon as war broke out with France, was intent on seizing control of as much of the West Indies as possible and not simply because of an effort at a land-grab. French revolutionary forces in the region enlisted privateers to prey on British shipping and in 1795 King Carlos IV of Spain was pressured into an alliance with the First French Republic, making almost every part of the West Indies a real or potential threat to British security in the region. Throughout the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, British forces undertook a number of operations in and around the West Indies which often started out as brilliant successes but proved extremely costly due to the prevalence of disease in the islands.

First Earl Grey

As part of a wider operation against other islands in the neighborhood, British forces under the overall command of General Charles Grey landed on Guadeloupe in April of 1794 and joined in cooperation with the French royalists there. This was in fulfillment of the terms of the Whitehall Accord signed by the British and the French royalists representing Guadeloupe, Martinique and Saint-Domingue by which the French royalists offered financial support in exchange for British military protection against the revolutionaries. Backed up by Royal Navy forces led by Admiral Sir John Jervis, the British made short work of the local defending forces and within a matter of days had the island under their control. With most local matters left in the hands of the royalist French planters, life returned to what it had been before the outbreak of the revolution. However, little more than a month later, a French fleet arrived with Victor Hugues and a relatively small number of French troops. While the British army was being decimated by yellow fever, Hugues rallied local republicans and a large force of Blacks and mulattos attracted by his proclamation of the abolition of slavery. These reinforced the 1,500 French troops he had brought with him and while his forces grew stronger, those of the British and French royalists grew only weaker due to the ravages of disease.

Today, Victor Hugues is most remembered for his carrying out of the abolition of slavery in accordance with the order of the National Convention, however, the image of the liberating revolutionary opposing the wicked slave-holding royalists backed up by Britain is an extremely misleading one. Hugues, it should not be forgotten, was typical of the Jacobins he aligned himself with. These were people who espoused lofty, liberal sentiments but who used the most brutal and barbaric methods to push forward their cause. These were the people who instituted the Reign of Terror in France and Hugues had no hesitation in using the same methods on Guadeloupe. Similarly, his abolition of slavery was not the great liberation most people think. In typical Jacobin fashion, it ultimately proved to be a mere matter of rhetoric that bore no relation to actual reality. In fact, slavery was not abolished by the revolutionaries at all but simply renamed. The end result was that, while no one was technically a slave, the supposedly liberated people were still subject to forced labor as the governor saw fit to employ and he employed a great deal of it in the pursuit of his goal to crush the royalists and drive the British from the island. For the Black residents of Guadeloupe, nothing fundamentally changed other than that, instead of being forced to work without pay for the benefit of private owners, they were forced to work without pay for the benefit of the revolutionary government.

Hugues' proclamation ending slavery

However, thanks more to rampant disease than any brilliance on the part of the opposition, Hugues was ultimately victorious over the British. The force at Barville was obliged to surrender which included about 800 French royalist émigrés and 900 Black soldiers. Once again, though it is not often talked about, the true character of the French Revolution and its supporters was on full display when, after the surrender, Hugues carried out a horrific bloodbath, massacring 865 French royalists as well as some of the other prisoners. Sadly, such brutality was not unique to Guadeloupe. Whereas most people know about the horrific cruelty of the French Revolution in France with the September Massacres, the butchery in western France, the regicide and so on, few remember that the same sort of things happened on a smaller scale in the French colonies and they were no less brutal and, at times, even more so. The true legacy of the French Revolution, in the West Indies as elsewhere, was not “liberty, equality and fraternity” but rather the delusion that all injustice can be remedied by mass executions and that if one claims a lofty-enough sounding ideal, the most vile and despicable depths of cruelty and brutality can be justified. In rejecting the revolution and embracing monarchy, this mentality is also rejected; the idea that perfection in this life can be achieved by means of human extermination.

As for Guadeloupe, while the British did send reinforcements to the West Indies for a new offensive led by the talented General Sir Ralph Abercromby, that island was never retaken and it became a paradise for pirates and smugglers throughout the period in question. Eventually, Napoleon Bonaparte sent troops to bring the island under his control and during the subsequent occupation about 10,000 inhabitants were killed. In 1810 the British did return and retake the island, holding it until 1816. During that time, from 1813, it was under the nominal jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Sweden before being ceded back to France in 1814. Slavery returned with the troops sent by Napoleon and was not actually abolished for good until 1848 through the efforts of Victor Schoelcher. In 1946 Guadeloupe became an overseas department of France which it has remained ever since.

Mad Rant: Racism and Monarchy

Recently I got a particularly long comment (which I did not post due to excessive foul language) regarding my post on Jamaica and the monarchy of last November (obviously not the most timely commentator) and although I shrugged it off at the time as yet another incoherent bit of hatred from someone who is obviously not a regular reader but a troll looking trouble. However, the accusation is one which I see frequently made on news articles dealing with the monarchy in Jamaica and even in articles dealing with the monarchy in places such as Canada, Australia and elsewhere. That accusation is “racism”. It is old, it is tired, it has been overused to the point of being an epithet devoid of meaning and is a sure sign that one is winning an argument with a leftist. However, the ugliness and injustice of it never fails to infuriate me. It is such a grossly dishonest and despicable accusation to make that my temper threatens to get the better of me. Nothing could be further from the truth in saying that the monarchy is racist and it burns me to the core that the Queen is not given her due credit for being one of the most adamant (and effective) crusaders against racism in modern times nor is the fact often recognized that the Queen has, as it turned out, sacrificed vast domains because of her refusal to abide racism.

Wherever one sides on the divisive racial issues of the era that encompassed the period of the dissolution of the British Empire, the fact remains, though it is seldom spoken, that in numerous countries across Africa, especially the major regional powers of Rhodesia and South Africa, republicanism was embraced because the Queen refused to abide the continued rule of White minorities over Black majorities. The monarchy refused to allow that state of affairs to continue, the White governments in power saw the monarchy as taking the side of the Black majority and so they broke away from the monarchy and became republics. This was no surprise, plenty of people at the time could see that this was going to happen and yet the monarchy basically looked at the people who were in charge in these countries, considered them racist and effectively said, ‘if you’re going on that way, we don’t want you anyway’. If the monarchy was such a racist institution they certainly would have taken the side of the local governments and so kept the reign of the Crown over those countries for decades into the future. But, that did not happen, the monarchy firmly stood against racism and lost more than one Commonwealth realm because of it. Yet, today, where is the appreciation for this?

In 1999, when the divisiveness of Australian government recognition of the aboriginal population was still a very hot-button issue, Queen Elizabeth II invited a delegation of aborigine leaders to a meeting at Buckingham Palace to come to a better understanding of their situation and their goals. It undoubtedly upset some people and a great many people said it would never happen, that the Queen would never receive such a delegation and yet she did, not only receiving them but taking the initiative of inviting them in the first place. And the important thing to realize is that this is nothing new, nothing out of the ordinary and is simply the continuation of a long history of respect for native peoples on the part of the British monarchy. When Pocahontas came to England she was invited to Whitehall where she was given the full royal treatment with King James I treating her with such warmth and informality she had to be told after the fact that the man she had been talking to was the King of England, Scotland and Ireland. Mohawk chief Joseph Brant was very cordially received by King George III in 1775.

This was the same King George III who boycotted sugar in all his royal residences when he was told about the conditions of the slaves on the sugar plantations and it was this same King George III who granted freedom to all slaves who managed to flee their masters in the American colonies and enlist in the service of the Crown. He was also the King who signed into law the final abolition of the slave trade in 1807. Slavery was abolished completely in the British Empire under Queen Victoria and the Queen left no doubt as to her own opinions on the subject. She met with escaped slaves, anti-slavery activists and expressed her support for abolition. There was, at the time, absolutely no doubt about this even though they were many powerful people in the country who strongly supported the institution. That did not matter to the very high-minded Queen Victoria who viewed slavery as a wicked and uncivilized practice and was extremely pleased to put her name to the law banning it forever. When slavery was becoming an ever more controversial issue in the United States, Queen Victoria made it clear that it would not be tolerated on British soil and that any escaped slave who reached Canada would never have to fear being returned south. Many anti-slavery activists were effusive in their praise of the Queen for the great support she showed their cause.

There is simply no justification for any sort of accusations that the monarchy is racist. It is outrageous that so many people are allowed to get away with making that a casual accusation without ever being stopped and challenged about it. There is absolutely nothing racist about monarchy in general, certainly nothing racist about the British monarchy and I will state unequivocally that no member of the British Royal Family has a racist bone in their body. Yes, that includes Prince Philip and I am sick and tired of people taking one or two remarks, always told in a friendly and joking manner, and stretching them out of all recognition to construe something racist on his part. It is slanderous, it is outrageous and it is absolutely dishonest. The monarchy has been a champion against racism for hundreds of years and far from being ridiculed and attacked they should be recognized and thanked for that long tradition. Any time anyone hears the monarchy, the Queen or any royal being accused of racism they should not let the comment go unchallenged. It is a vicious lie and must be exposed as such immediately at every opportunity. I am not so much surprised or even angered by those who most often make the accusation but I am positively enraged by the media people that let them get away with it without even challenging them to back up such a baseless claim. I am sick of it, I am tired of it and I am … The Mad Monarchist.

Jamaica and the Monarchy

Monarchy first came to the island of Jamaica with the beginning of Spanish rule in 1509 during the reign of Queen Juana of Castile (our dear “Juana the Mad”). Spanish rule was further consolidated by her successor Emperor Charles V. Spanish ruled ended in 1655 with King Philip IV being the last Hapsburg to reign over the island. For a time it was the end of monarchy period as this was the period of the interregnum in Great Britain but royal rule returned with the restoration of King Charles II in 1660. However, it took still more time for government to take hold as Jamaica and much of the Caribbean had become a haven for pirates and/or privateers in the various wars between England, Holland, France and Spain. For a very long time Jamaica was one of the ‘crown jewels’ of the burgeoning British Empire. The most lucrative industry was the many sugarcane plantations on the island which produced great wealth for all involved from the plantation owners to the trade and shipping companies. The only people who did not benefit, of course, were the slaves who were imported, mostly from West Africa, to work the plantations.

Slavery was taken as a simple fact of life during the Stuart and early Hanoverian periods but after numerous slave revolts and the growing advocacy of Christian abolitionist groups, thinking began to change and the monarchy was at the forefront. HM King George III was to be a crucial figure in the history of the British West Indies and the cause of monarchy in the Caribbean. He showed his solidarity with his subjects in the Caribbean in both his private life and in his public duties. It is not often remembered that King George III was so offended by the slave trade and the treatment of slaves on the sugar plantations (all of which was legal at the time) that he boycotted sugar to show his opposition to slavery. He was also adamant that the American Revolution had to be stridently opposed. It is easy to forget that the American Revolutionaries did not intend for their new republic to include the 13 colonies that later made up the United States alone. They expected their new republic to include all British territories in North America including the Canadas and the British West Indies. Even though the revolutionaries eventually secured the independence of the 13 colonies, by his zeal in supporting the war effort, King George III ensured that the loss was limited to those 13 colonies and their territorial claims while places like Canada and the West Indies remained under the Crown. It was also under King George III that the Slave Trade Act was passed in 1807 which abolished the slave trade in the British Empire.

It was during the reign of HM King William IV that slavery was finally abolished in Jamaica (and across the British Empire) in 1834 (decades before the United States did the same and that was after a civil war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives). With each new royal dynasty the island of Jamaica had achieved progress. British rule came with the Stuarts, the abolition of the slave trade and slavery came with the House of Hanover and independence was to come with the House of Windsor. It was under HM King George VI that Jamaica became a self-governing dominion within the British Empire in 1944. Jamaicans gave admirable service in both World Wars. In World War I, for example, troops from the British West Indies were sent to serve in the epic campaigns in Africa. The local Africans were very impressed with the discipline and professionalism of the Caribbean troops (known as the West India Regiment) having previously seen only White troops from Europe display such expertise. Because this was their experience they often referred to the Caribbean troops as “Black Europeans” because they carried themselves with the same pride and professionalism they were used to seeing only in European troops.

On August 6, 1962 Jamaica became a completely independent Commonwealth Realm under HM Queen Elizabeth II. The Queen has visited Jamaica six times during her reign and has toured almost every corner of the island, first in 1953, twice in 1966, in 1983, 1994 and 2002. Throughout the centuries under the British Crown and as an independent Commonwealth Realm, the island nation of Jamaica has known stability and consistent progress. The monarchy and the web of support it brings with it have allowed Jamaica to avoid the upheavals, hardship and foreign interventions experienced by many of her island neighbors. Today the monarchy remains popular with the Jamaican people but, as usual, there are those openly and deceptively pushing the republican agenda. One must wonder what such people are thinking. Would they prefer Jamaica to be more like the impoverished republic of Haiti or perhaps the Communist dictatorship of Cuba? With the Crown and the Jamaican monarchy the island has had security, independence, freedom and a proven system of government to respond to the needs of society. Thankfully, the loyal monarchists of Jamaica are organized and now taking advantage of social media to encourage the royalist cause and defend the Jamaican monarchy. For an example, see the Caribbean Monarchist League on Facebook.