Haitian exports by weight and numbers in 1860, table taken from Hepburn's Haiti As It Is, a rather sympathetic description of his impressions of the early Geffrard years. Note that compared to 1838 and 1839, the weight of coffee exports is actually much smaller, around 22 million lbs. versus an average of over 43 million lbs. for 1838 and 1839. What went wrong? Also, tobacco is no longer an export, but other exports such as logwood remained more constant. Could the decline in coffee exports be attributable to competition from Brazil, Java (Indonesia) and elsewhere?
Also, by 1860, Hepburn states that Haiti imported nearly twice the value of its exports, another sign of increasing dependency, especially on the US, the principal trading partner who provided mostly provisions (a similar economic relationship existed for the British colonies in the Caribbean, such as Jamaica, whose markets often relied on US provisions and exports for sustenance). Since the state derived most of its revenue from duties on imports and exports, clearly the masses felt the blow as they paid more for imports from the US, France, Germany, and Britain while receiving less and less in exchange for their own products. Because the most essential export product of peasant and rural communities remained coffee, but less coffee was being exported, one can see how the process of greater poverty and dependency began to appear.
There are some interesting what-ifs in Hepburn's overly optimistic and pro-Geffrard travel narrative. I am still reading, but there was talks between an Anglo-French company and the Haitian government to tap into Haiti's deposits of lignum vitae, which, according to Hepburn, was another source of energy, like coal, for the 19th century. According to him, this foreign company and Geffrard's government were discussing the establishment of a railway in the area of Haiti with vast deposits and connecting it to the nearest port town, as well as the transfer of industrial technology for such a project. That such an idea was in discussion under Geffrard was part of Hepburn's overwhelmingly pro-Geffrard narrative, because he saw Soulouque as causing a decline in Haitian civilization whereas Geffrard was able, wise, just, interested in education and industrialization, and preparing to remove the militarized form of the Haitian state to usher in progress and prosperity. He also got the Haitian government its first steam boats, each one named for the president! Moreover, Geffrard lessened the amount of time soldiers were expected to be on duty in order to support agriculture.
Haiti's principal trading partner was the United States, and provisions were the majority of American exports to Haiti. Indeed, if Hepburn is to be taken seriously on this matter, Haiti, like Jamaica and other British colonies in the Caribbean, was quite dependent on US foodstuffs, such as flour, rice, pork, etc. France provided wine, Britain dry goods, and Germany, sausage, cheese and manufactured products. Unfortunately, Hepburn does not provide data on the values or weight and numbers of foreign products in Haiti.
Needless to say, Geffrard did not live up to the great praise and expectations of Hepburn, of being such a hero and progressive leader in mid-19th century Haiti. Instead, he retained a military system in governance and relied upon the British to put down an uprising against his regime before exile in Jamaica. I will write a follow-up post after I finish perusing Hepburn for additional insights or commentary on Haiti in the early 1860s.
