When was the REAL (Dominican) Declaration of Independence made?

[BIZC8]

Throughout the ages, Dominicans have been led to believe that our independence was declared on February 27th, 1844 from the Haitian Occupation.

If you notice, we only liberated ourselves from an occupation. Our independence had technically already been declared from Spain back in December 1st, 1821. You can't declare independence twice and you can only become independent from a colonial power, not an occupation force.

It is my humble opinion, that the Dominican Republics' true and genuine Independence Day is December 1st, 1821, and not February 27th, 1844 as we have been led to believe.

Today's article in El Nacional by historian Robert Espinal Luna sheds light on this issue and I quote: "La independencia había sido proclamada mediante acta el primero de diciembre de 1821 y un mismo hecho no puede ocurrir dos veces, además de que la actual República Dominicana nunca fue colonia de Haití, como sí lo fue de España, por lo que la verdadera independencia sólo es posible concebirla frente a la Madre Patria", agregó Espinal Luna.

The first and true declaration of independence on that day was proclaimed to free our nation from Spain and named the new nation "Spanish Haiti". Its flag was very similar to the present day's Colombian flag. Upon proclamation, we made a request to become part of "La Gran Colombia" or "New Grenada", but before the approval was made, French Haiti invaded the eastern part of the Hispaniola, what is now the Dominican Republic. Our forefathers were inspired by the ongoing liberation movement being led in South America by Simon Bolivar and to that effect, we Dominicans sought our freedom from Spain by joining forces with "La Gran Colombia" composed of present day Ecuador, Venezuela, Colombia, Peru and Panama.

So, being that we were technically never a colony of the Haiti, but rather an "occupied territory", our independence for all legal and practical purposes should be re-written in all history books as December 1st, 1821, from Spain and not from the Republique d'Haiti.

[NALs]

I noticed that too, however I think the fact that the first republic had a different name and hardly existed (it was conquered by Haiti almost as soon as it got its independence from Spain) is perhaps the reason why Feb 27 is declared Independence Day.

The first one was the independence of Haití Español, while the second one gave birth to La República Dominicana.

Technically, two different republics.

Also, if we change the day we consider our country got its independence, then that have other consequences such as Duarte, Mella, and Sanchez will no longer be the "fathers of the country".

This has more than meets the eye.

-NALs

[BIZC8]

Originally Posted by NALs

I noticed that too, however I think the fact that the first republic had a different name and hardly existed (it was conquered by Haiti almost as soon as it got its independence from Spain) is perhaps the reason why Feb 27 is declared Independence Day.

The first one was the independence of Haití Español, while the second one gave birth to the Dominican Republic.

Technically, two different republics.

Also, if we change the day we consider our country got its independence, then that have other consequences such as Duarte, Mella, and Sanchez will no longer be the "fathers of the country".

This has more than meets the eye.

-NALs

Well, I did say history would have to be re-written. Had we made the clarification much earlier, perhaps our country would still have been named the Dominican Republic, perhaps not. Maybe it would've come to be known as "Haití Español" or "La Española" or simply "Santo Domingo". But in the end, we would've ended up a free country anyhow. My view is that history shouldn't be (conveniently) modified to romanticize a politically correct concept as that of Duarte, Sanchez & Mella. If not them three, then other people involved with our original declaration of independence would take their stead. I'm sure there are records of the people involved with the first Declaration of Independence from Spain in 1821. Our country's father(s) would come to be known as those other individuals who were or would be just as equally deserving.

[BIZC8]

Another thing I thought about. After having freed ourselves from the Haitians in 1844, we returned (although temporarily) to Spanish dominance from 1861 to 1865, during a period known as España Boba. At that time, we again declared ourselves independent. So if we are to consider 1844 as a genuine independence day, we would also have to equally validate that day in 1865 when we severed ties with Spain (for the second time). Since that was the latest severance of ties with any foreign state, technically then, that should be our independence. That day in 1865.

That doesn't seem too practical though because the initial declaration in 1821 was one internally conceptualized and implemented by the locals. Haití Español existed a mere six or seven months; but it existed. A formal petition was made, in writing under that name to La Gran Colombia to take our newly created nation under their wing. The Haitian Occupation was just that - an occupation. Our subsequent re-annexation to Spain was not fully supported by the Dominicans, but rather an initiative of Gral. Pedro Santana.

[NALs]

I understand what you are saying, but what you are suggesting has more implications that mere changing the role certain heroes had in the development of the country and the name of the country has a big meaning. Its not just a mere name with no strings attached.

There is a reason why the country created in 1844 was named República Dominicana and not Haití Español. Also, there has never been made an attempt by the founding fathers of the republic to assume that the Dominican Republic is a continuation of what once was Spanish Haiti.

As far as everything goes, the DR became independent in 1844 with help of the Catholic church and never has there been suggested that the DR is a continuation of the former state of Spanish Haiti.

That is different from what happened during the Spanish annexation. Once the republic was restored, it was basically a continuation of what once was before the Dominican Republic became Spanish territory once again. For that reason Gregorio Luperón and others did not went about declaring a new independence for a new country with a new name or new institutions. It was all dealt with as a continuum of what once was before the Spanish annexation.

That's why Feb 27 is our independence day and not Dec 1st.

Another aspect that has to be taken into account is the current pro-illegal immigrant stand that many in many social circles outside the DR (and even within) have taken. Any attempt to remove a connection to Haiti will be seen as an anti-Haitian act and that will not bode well for our country's image abroad, which is not good already.

I think we should leave history alone. There are differences between the Spanish Haiti independence, the independence of the Dominican Republic, and the restoration of the Dominican Republic. There are fundamental and ideological differences and the Dominican state and identity as we know is based on the independence of 1844 and not of 1821.

This is not just a matter of re-writting history, its almost akin to building a new state and that is neither easy nor desirable from a social, economic, or any other point of view.

This is just my opinion.

-NALs

[BIZC8]

A better chain of events is described as follows: A fines de 1808, al ser vencidas las fuerzas de ocupación francesas por los dominicanos y españoles, regresó a Santo Domingo donde escribió su célebre canto A los vencedores de Palo Hincado en la acción del 7 de noviembre de 1808.

Cuando Santo Domingo volvió a poder de España tuvo participación, entre 1810 y 1813, en el gobierno como teniente de gobernador, asesor jurídico e intendente. En 1812, dispuso la emisión de papel moneda y adoptó medidas de emergencia. En 1815, se desempeñó como rector de la Universidad de Santo Domingo. En mayo, desarrolló intensas actividades conspirativas; valiéndose de su posición oficial de teniente de gobernador y auditor de guerra, logrando ganar para su causa a los jefes de varios cuerpos militares, y arrestar en la noche del 30 de noviembre de 1821 al gobernador y capitán general. Finalmente, el 1 de diciembre quedó constituido el «Estado Independiente de Haití Español», para diferenciarlo de la ex colonia francesa, Haití, y donde Núñez de Cáceres ejerció la presidencia del gobierno provisional. El nuevo Estado, cuyos dirigentes temían una invasión de la vecina Haití, se colocó bajo la protección de la Gran Colombia. Núñez de Cáceres envió como emisario ante Simón Bolívar, presidente de la Gran Colombia, a Antonio María Pineda, quien no llegó a entrevistarse con el Libertador pues éste había ya emprendido la campaña del sur.

Aunque Núñez de Cáceres intentó conseguir el reconocimiento del Santo Domingo hispánico independiente por la República de Haití, el presidente de la vecina República, Jean Pierre Boyer, no sólo rechazó la idea sino que invadió el territorio de la parte oriental. Al recibir Bolívar la noticia de lo ocurrido el 1 de diciembre anterior en Santo Domingo (8.2.1822), se declaró dispuesto a ayudar a los dominicanos, pero el Estado Independiente de Haití Español dejó de existir el día siguiente, 9 de febrero de 1822, cuando el presidente Boyer hizo su entrada en la capital de Santo Domingo al mando de sus tropas. Ante estas circunstancias Núñez de Cáceres le entregó las llaves de la ciudad y se retiró a la vida privada. En agosto, estaba todavía en Santo Domingo, haciendo gestiones clandestinas para obtener apoyo de las autoridades de la Gran Colombia.

[BIZC8]

Originally Posted by NALs

I understand what you are saying, but what you are suggesting has more implications that mere changing the role certain heroes had in the development of the country and the name of the country has a big meaning. Its not just a mere name with no strings attached.

There is a reason why the country created in 1844 was named República Dominicana and not Haití Español. Also, there has never been made an attempt by the founding fathers of the republic to assume that the Dominican Republic is a continuation of what once was Spanish Haiti.

As far as everything goes, the DR became independent in 1844 with help of the Catholic church and never has there been suggested that the DR is a continuation of the former state of Spanish Haiti.

That is different from what happened during the Spanish annexation. Once the republic was restored, it was basically a continuation of what once was before the Dominican Republic became Spanish territory once again. For that reason Gregorio Luperón and others did not went about declaring a new independence for a new country with a new name or new institutions. It was all dealt with as a continuum of what once was before the Spanish annexation.

That's why Feb 27 is our independence day and not Dec 1st.

Another aspect that has to be taken into account is the current pro-illegal immigrant stand that many in many social circles outside the DR (and even within) have taken. Any attempt to remove a connection to Haiti will be seen as an anti-Haitian act and that will not bode well for our country's image abroad, which is not good already.

I think we should leave history alone. There are differences between the Spanish Haiti independence, the independence of the Dominican Republic, and the restoration of the Dominican Republic. There are fundamental and ideological differences and the Dominican state and identity as we know is based on the independence of 1844 and not of 1821.

This is not just a matter of re-writting history, its almost akin to building a new state and that is neither easy nor desirable from a social, economic, or any other point of view.

This is just my opinion.

-NALs

So basically you're suggesting we accept things for what they are judging from what was on the liberators' minds at the time of our independence and not what we seem to conceive at present time a little over a hundred years later. You're saying that because they did not leave something in writing or otherwise, clearly stipulating that they're continuing a liberation movement started back in 1821 by José Nuñez de Cáceres but this time under the new name of República Dominicana and not Estado Independiente de Haití Español that the latter could not and would not be grandfathered under the first independence movement. The way I see it, the Haitian invasion/occupation was only an obstacle, a setback if you will, to a greater end started on December 1st, 1821 - independence. Remember, a setback is a setup to get back.

Then you imply that we need to cater to the international community's perception of what they may believe our true intentions are - regardless of what the historical facts are. That, unfortunately, doesn't sit in too well with me. Be it as it may, we declared our independence from Spain, Haiti saw an opportunity to take advantage of a weak, newly created nation seeking outside support from La Gran Colombia and invaded it occupying it for 22 years. By then, the initial dream of being free gained enough support to turn things around and be independent once again. We should see those twenty two years of occupation as just that, an occupation. Not a colonization. We were never a colony of Haiti. Our identity, our culture and our ideals had already been clearly defined by the time Haiti invaded Santo Domingo.

[NALs]

Originally Posted by BIZC8

So basically you're suggesting we accept things for what they are judging from what was on the liberators' minds at the time of our independence and not what we seem to conceive at present time a little over a hundred years later. You're saying that because they did not leave something in writing or otherwise, clearly stipulating that they're continuing a liberation movement started back in 1821 by José Nuñez de Cáceres but this time under the new name of República Dominicana and not Estado Independiente de Haití Español that the latter could not and would not be grandfathered under the first independence movement. The way I see it, the Haitian invasion/occupation was only an obstacle, a setback if you will, to a greater end started on December 1st, 1821 - independence. Remember, a setback is a setup to get back.

Yes, that's what I mean.

We are two separate minds and because of that, we will have to agree to disagree on this.

Originally Posted by BIZC8

Then you imply that we need to cater to the international community's perception of what they may believe our true intentions are - regardless of what the historical facts are. That, unfortunately, doesn't sit in too well with me. Be it as it may, we declared our independence from Spain, Haiti saw an opportunity to take advantage of a weak, newly created nation seeking outside support from La Gran Colombia and invaded it occupying it for 22 years. By then, the initial dream of being free gained enough support to turn things around and be independent once again. We should see those twenty two years of occupation as just that, an occupation. Not a colonization. We were never a colony of Haiti. Our identity, our culture and our ideals had already been clearly defined by the time Haiti invaded Santo Domingo

Sometimes people value more their belief of what the world should be like rather than accepting what the world actually is.

In other words, the truth is worthless in an environment where everyone believes what ought to be and not what is.

BTW, the identity of Haití Español was tampered with thanks to 22 years (ie. a full generation) of Haitian domination. Many things changed in our culture, in part due to the Haitian invasion.

Its true that we retained most of our hispanic traditions, its also true that the African component was strengthened by the Haitian occupiers and their policy of Africanizing the entire island and eliminating traces of Europeans.

But, again, we will have to agree to disagree.

-NALs

[bilijou]

Many Dominicans don’t think 1821 was a REAL independence because it wasn’t much of a fight (b/c of the Espa~a boba period). It was led by one man, Nu~ez de Caceres, who sort-of “filed” for independence rather than “fight” for it. Also, many of those living in the island, given the French colonization, felt very attached to Spain.

By the 1844 independence, the eastern part of the island had woken up a separate identity from Haiti. It qualifies as an Independence because of there was a fight for it. But it wasn’t led by all sectors of society… only a small elite. The main army itself was composed of Santana’s buddies.

The 1865 independence, however, is in my opinion the REAL one. This war united the whole country which by this point had gained a strong sense of identity, separate from both Haiti AND Spain. The fight required the recruitment of the campesino masses, unheard of before in the DR. I’ve always thought that Gregorio Luperon should be elevated to a founding father level.

Then again, it’s really a matter of opinion…

[Chip00]

Originally Posted by BIZC8

You can't declare independence twice and you can only become independent from a colonial power, not an occupation force.

Perdon, but says who if you don't mind explaining?