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

BIZC8 · Mar 7, 2007

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 hab?a sido proclamada mediante acta el primero de diciembre de 1821 y un mismo hecho no puede ocurrir dos veces, adem?s de que la actual Rep?blica Dominicana nunca fue colonia de Hait?, como s? lo fue de Espa?a, por lo que la verdadera independencia s?lo es posible concebirla frente a la Madre Patria", agreg? 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 · Mar 7, 2007

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 Hait? Espa?ol, while the second one gave birth to La Rep?blica 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 · Mar 7, 2007

NALs said:
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 Hait? Espa?ol, 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 "Hait? Espa?ol" or "La Espa?ola" 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 · Mar 7, 2007

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 Espa?a 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. Hait? Espa?ol 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 · Mar 7, 2007

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 Rep?blica Dominicana and not Hait? Espa?ol. 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 Luper?n 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 · Mar 7, 2007

A better chain of events is described as follows: A fines de 1808, al ser vencidas las fuerzas de ocupaci?n francesas por los dominicanos y espa?oles, regres? a Santo Domingo donde escribi? su c?lebre canto A los vencedores de Palo Hincado en la acci?n del 7 de noviembre de 1808.

Cuando Santo Domingo volvi? a poder de Espa?a tuvo participaci?n, entre 1810 y 1813, en el gobierno como teniente de gobernador, asesor jur?dico e intendente. En 1812, dispuso la emisi?n de papel moneda y adopt? medidas de emergencia. En 1815, se desempe?? como rector de la Universidad de Santo Domingo. En mayo, desarroll? intensas actividades conspirativas; vali?ndose de su posici?n 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 capit?n general. Finalmente, el 1 de diciembre qued? constituido el ?Estado Independiente de Hait? Espa?ol?, para diferenciarlo de la ex colonia francesa, Hait?, y donde N??ez de C?ceres ejerci? la presidencia del gobierno provisional. El nuevo Estado, cuyos dirigentes tem?an una invasi?n de la vecina Hait?, se coloc? bajo la protecci?n de la Gran Colombia. N??ez de C?ceres envi? como emisario ante Sim?n Bol?var, presidente de la Gran Colombia, a Antonio Mar?a Pineda, quien no lleg? a entrevistarse con el Libertador pues ?ste hab?a ya emprendido la campa?a del sur.

Aunque N??ez de C?ceres intent? conseguir el reconocimiento del Santo Domingo hisp?nico independiente por la Rep?blica de Hait?, el presidente de la vecina Rep?blica, Jean Pierre Boyer, no s?lo rechaz? la idea sino que invadi? el territorio de la parte oriental. Al recibir Bol?var la noticia de lo ocurrido el 1 de diciembre anterior en Santo Domingo (8.2.1822), se declar? dispuesto a ayudar a los dominicanos, pero el Estado Independiente de Hait? Espa?ol dej? de existir el d?a 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 N??ez de C?ceres le entreg? las llaves de la ciudad y se retir? a la vida privada. En agosto, estaba todav?a en Santo Domingo, haciendo gestiones clandestinas para obtener apoyo de las autoridades de la Gran Colombia.

BIZC8 · Mar 7, 2007

NALs said:
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 Rep?blica Dominicana and not Hait? Espa?ol. 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 Luper?n 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 Jos? Nu?ez de C?ceres but this time under the new name of Rep?blica Dominicana and not Estado Independiente de Hait? Espa?ol 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 · Mar 7, 2007

BIZC8 said:
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 Jos? Nu?ez de C?ceres but this time under the new name of Rep?blica Dominicana and not Estado Independiente de Hait? Espa?ol 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.

BIZC8 said:
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 Hait? Espa?ol 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 · Mar 7, 2007

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 · Mar 7, 2007

Se murio el rey y dejo....

BIZC8 said:
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?

asopao · Mar 8, 2007

ndependencia s?lo es posible concebirla frente a la Madre Patria", agreg? Espinal Luna.[/i]

Madre patria? It is a pitty that there are still many imbeciles out there ( like Luna) referring to Spain as " Madre Patria".

It is truly an archaic expression, It is a term of endearment used by hispanophiles. characters like Balaguer liked to use it many times in their books.

I don't know what "endearment" can Dominicans find in a kingdom that used its land and people of color as commodities for exploitation.

By calling Spain by " Madre Patria, all you are doing is slapping in the face all those " nameless" slaves that were beaten, tortured, raped and even killed back in colonial times. We Dominicans have to eradicate such unpleasant terminologies, such as " pelo malo" too.

Criss Colon · Mar 8, 2007

Since There Is Little Difference Between Haiti And The Dominican,...

Why not just call a "Spade A Spade" and name the whole island "Hispanola Negra", or something that tells the true history of the island??? "Creole" is the "National Language" of both sides now!!
Cris Colon

BIZC8 · Mar 8, 2007

I'll explain. Independence from a colonial power and liberation of an already independent nation from an occupying force are most definitely two different things. Iraq for example. Iraq is an independent country occupied by foreign forces. Once Iraq regains control of its people and land, it will go back to being what it always was - an independent country. Regardless of the fact that it's got years and years of experience as an independent country. The essence, the concept is the same. Iraq is militarily occupied by foreign forces. They will not regain independence once the occupation ceases because they never lost it.

Our country (then known as Spanish Haiti) was already declared and proclaimed as an independent state through a proclamation made on December 1st, 1821 by Jos? N??ez de C?ceres. Haiti militarily occupied our new country several months later. The occupation lasted 22 years, but in the end we fought our way back to independence. Yes, I must concede that our case is not exactly a mirror image of what's currently going on in Iraq, BUT the sequence of events are rather very similar. We were already independent (although briefly) and we were again invaded (first by Spain who colonized us, then by Haiti who did not). You gain independence from a colonial power, not from an occupation force. You occupy sovereign soil. You colonize all others.

Bottom line it is just my opinion. Much the same way that NALS presented his. I'm of the opinion that history should be corrected although I frankly don't see it happening anytime in the near or distant future. I'll go further and quote NALS when he said that at the very least we must agree to disagree.

BIZC8 · Mar 8, 2007

Criss Colon said:
Why not just call a "Spade A Spade" and name the whole island "Hispanola Negra", or something that tells the true history of the island??? "Creole" is the "National Language" of both sides now!!
Cris Colon

Criss, I sense a tad of bigotry in your comment. If that's what makes your hormone levels balanced, then so be it. Call it what you will. We Dominicans, on the other hand, will call it what we Dominicans know the facts to be. I believe your comment was out of place, tasteless and uncalled for. We have an illegal immigration problem from Haiti much like the US has it with Mexico. Would you make that kind of comment to the general Anglo US population? How do you think they'd feel about a comment like that?

Rick Snyder · Mar 8, 2007

History is always such a debatable subject, the reason I moved this thread, and is always interpreted differently by different people regardless as to what the supposed truths are that are published.

A very classic example of this would be the US Civil War. Almost 150 years after the fact it is still being taught that slavery was the reason for that war.

Presenting your opinions and debating the substantiality of that which you proclaim is all well and good but the possibility of changing the minds of those that don't wish to change that which they have been led to believe and that which has been written sounds like a losing battle.

Rick

Chip00 · Mar 8, 2007

Rick Snyder said:
History is always such a debatable subject, the reason I moved this thread, and is always interpreted differently by different people regardless as to what the supposed truths are that are published.

A very classic example of this would be the US Civil War. Almost 150 years after the fact it is still being taught that slavery was the reason for that war.

Presenting your opinions and debating the substantiality of that which you proclaim is all well and good but the possibility of changing the minds of those that don't wish to change that which they have been led to believe and that which has been written sounds like a losing battle.

Rick

Rick

I agree that history will at most times appear different depending on one's poit of view. Obviously, the OP has an agenda to prove that the "real" independence was is 1822 or so - using subjective semantics of certain terms more than substance to justify revising history according to his point of view.

Also, with reference to the Civil War, it may have not been all about slavery, but one thing is for certain - there would have been no Civil War if there was no slavery.:classic:

Rick Snyder · Mar 8, 2007

Chip you crack me up. Hehehe. And we come full circle because your last sentence is DEBATABLE.

This is in no way being posted to start such a debate so please let's not have anyone go there.

Rick

asopao · Mar 9, 2007

BIZC8 said:
I'll explain. Independence from a colonial power and liberation of an already independent nation from an occupying force are most definitely two different things. Iraq for example. Iraq is an independent country occupied by foreign forces. Once Iraq regains control of its people and land, it will go back to being what it always was - an independent country. Regardless of the fact that it's got years and years of experience as an independent country. The essence, the concept is the same. Iraq is militarily occupied by foreign forces. They will not regain independence once the occupation ceases because they never lost it.

Our country (then known as Spanish Haiti) was already declared and proclaimed as an independent state through a proclamation made on December 1st, 1821 by Jos? N??ez de C?ceres. Haiti militarily occupied our new country several months later. The occupation lasted 22 years, but in the end we fought our way back to independence. Yes, I must concede that our case is not exactly a mirror image of what's currently going on in Iraq, BUT the sequence of events are rather very similar. We were already independent (although briefly) and we were again invaded (first by Spain who colonized us, then by Haiti who did not). You gain independence from a colonial power, not from an occupation force. You occupy sovereign soil. You colonize all others.

Bottom line it is just my opinion. Much the same way that NALS presented his. I'm of the opinion that history should be corrected although I frankly don't see it happening anytime in the near or distant future. I'll go further and quote NALS when he said that at the very least we must agree to disagree.

Dude, Haiti didn't do an occupation, Haiti did an ANNEXATION,part of the confusion is that there are crappy history books that don't make these distinctions, or are simply biased. It was an annexation because the eastern sides became provinces of Haiti, Jean-Pierre Boyer included Easteners ( future Dominicans) in his government, like Buenaventura Baez.
contrary to popular belief, the majority of Easterners in 1821 were in favor of uniting with Haiti, because racist, azqueroso Jos? Nu?ez de Caceres didn't want to abolish slavery,and kept racial discrimination in place for the free people of color. For all the free Blacks and Mulattoes, Haiti represented to them a just country, that will offer them the opportunities that Caceres and his colonial mentality wouldn't provide them.

Now that we know that 1822 wasn't an occupation, but an annexation,we can deduct that the separatist revolt in 1844 was in fact an independece. independence because a new State emerged out of another one.The same way Greece emerged out of the Ottoman Empire in 1822. A new State different from Caceres's Haiti Espa?ol, which had a different flag, and racist laws, like keeping slavery for example. Something tht Duarte wouldn't allow in 1844.

Criss Colon · Mar 9, 2007

I Can't See The DIFFERENCE Between Dominicans & Haitians!

Does the side of the "FENCE" you live on make any difference???
CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC

Kyle · Mar 9, 2007

remember people, history is "his story" which is one person's view....many falsehoods have come to light because of "his story"...

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

New member

Economist by Profession

New member

New member

Economist by Profession

New member

New member

Economist by Profession

New member

Chip00

Guest

New member

Platinum

New member

New member

Silver

Chip00

Guest

Silver

New member

Platinum

Silver