The Second Empire

Reading Claude Moise piqued our interest in 19th century Haiti. Noticing that his chapter on Soulouque was brief and did not really interrogate how or why an imperial government system appealed to Haitians for about a decade, we decided to read Emmanuel Lachaud's thesis, The Emancipated Empire: Faustin I Soulouque and the Origins of the Second Haitian Empire, 1847-1859. Although not a complete narrative history of the Soulouque years, it does offer a number of intriguing and provocative theories on Soulouque's rise to power, the basis of his legitimacy, and the popular support for an imperial or monarchical government system in Haiti. Instead of viewing Haitian history through a teleological lens in which liberal democracy is the aim, making Soulouque's regime an aberration, it was actually the result of a complex array of factors in Haiti's turbulent 1840s. Understanding that Haiti was only about half a century away from independence and a little more removed from the days of slavery, Lachaud insists that we contextualize Haiti's mid-century as one in which contentions between various classes continued on the issue of freedom in a post-emancipation context. Furthermore, since 4 decades of liberal republicanism had created an exclusionary state that also penalized popular spirituality (anti-Vodou laws), sought to revive plantation agriculture (Code Rural), and denied formal political participation to the rural masses and urban poor, one can see why the idea of transforming Haiti into a monarchy was not so bizarre. 

Indeed, coming to power after the 1843 liberal constitution failed, the rise of the Piquets threatened social revolution, regional divisions fractured national unity, and inflamed colorist-inflected conflict among elites over power raised tensions, Soulouque as an Emperor could be construed as the necessary figure who could unite the country through his imperial majesty. According to Lachaud, Soulouque was able to accomplish this after taking over the violence associated with 1848. Instead of seeing Soulouque as a mastermind who orchestrated it, Lachaud argues that the sources best suggest that he capitalized on it and lent legitimacy to the social unrest by taking control of the violence directed against elites. Thus, the Piquets and Zinglins were absorbed, coopted and, through Soulouque's administration strategically backing them, gained their support. Once he had achieved this, Soulouque could capitalize on this as grounds for political legitimacy against those who threatened the unity of the state. Legitimizing empire also required careful use of religious and spiritual discourse and symbolism, profiting from Marian apparitions and popular belief to lend divine support for Soulouque's rise to the throne. Once on the throne, Soulouque could draw on black male masculinity and the legacy of military strongmen and gwo neg to further his political legitimacy and appeal. Needless to say, sponsoring the arts, pomp, pageantry, regal style and aesthetics, and projecting an image of unity built on the Vodou-Catholic "Haitian" religious grounds, Soulouque's empire was able to stay in power.

Of course, repression, authoritarian actions, and violence were a necessary part of the equation. Lachaud does not seek to romanticize Soulouque or 19th century Haitian governments. But trying to understand how Haitian vernacular sociopolitics, Vodou, masculinity and complex legacy of royalism and liberalism in the Haitian context suggest new ways of viewing the turbulent "decades of instability." One only wishes there had been space here for a further discussion of Soulouque's fall. For example, the unpopular invasions of the Dominican Republic, are scarcely mentioned here. What other factors led to the decline of legitimacy in Soulouque's regime? In other words, where were the Zinglins or Piquets who might have supported him in 1859? What forces led to the return to a republican government after so many years of imperial monarchy?