Skip to main content Accessibility help


  • Access


      • Send article to Kindle

        To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

        Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

        Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

        Cultivators, domestics, and Slaves: Slavery in Santo Domingo under Louverture and Napoleon, 1801–1803
        Available formats

        Send article to Dropbox

        To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

        Cultivators, domestics, and Slaves: Slavery in Santo Domingo under Louverture and Napoleon, 1801–1803
        Available formats

        Send article to Google Drive

        To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

        Cultivators, domestics, and Slaves: Slavery in Santo Domingo under Louverture and Napoleon, 1801–1803
        Available formats
Export citation


On January 13, 1803, the French notary Derieux visited the first of several estates owned by Domingo Rodríguez, recently deceased. Rodríguez's property lay in the environs of Santiago de los Caballeros, a town in the north-central valley of Santo Domingo on eastern Hispaniola (today, the Dominican Republic). Over a three-week period, Derieux traveled with a team of witnesses and assessors to properties as far away as coastal Puerto Plata in order to assess the value of Rodríguez's cloth store, home, cabins, pasture land, livestock, cane and foodstuff fields, and sugar-processing equipment. Two of the three plantations also included a different kind of asset. At the sugar estate Gourave, Derieux wrote down the names of the 35 cultivateurs, cultivatrices, and enfants, that is, male and female agricultural workers and their children.


Research for this article was made possible by support from a grant at the Nanovic Center for European Studies at the University of Notre Dame. This study benefited from the help of staff at the Archives Nationales d'Outre-Mer (France), the Archivo del Arzobispado de Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic), and the Archivo General de la Nación (Dominican Republic). The author wishes to thank Karen Graubart, Richard Turits, Antonio Jesús Pinto Tortosa, David Sartorius and members of the board at The Americas, members of the Latin American History Working Group at the University of Notre Dame, members of the Slavery, Memory, and African Diasporas Working Group at Howard University, participants in the 2016 Emancipation of Bound Laborers in the Americas before the Abolition of Slavery Conference (Montpellier, France), and two anonymous reviewers for The Americas for their suggestions. Translations are by the author.

On January 13, 1803, the French notary Derieux visited the first of several estates owned by Domingo Rodríguez, recently deceased. Rodríguez's property lay in the environs of Santiago de los Caballeros, a town in the north-central valley of Santo Domingo on eastern Hispaniola (today, the Dominican Republic). Over a three-week period, Derieux traveled with a team of witnesses and assessors to properties as far away as coastal Puerto Plata in order to assess the value of Rodríguez's cloth store, home, cabins, pasture land, livestock, cane and foodstuff fields, and sugar-processing equipment. Two of the three plantations also included a different kind of asset. At the sugar estate Gourave, Derieux wrote down the names of the 35 cultivateurs, cultivatrices, and enfants, that is, male and female agricultural workers and their children.1

At that moment, in Santiago, two “nègresses qui dépendent également de l'habitation” (black women who were also dependents of the estate) were serving Rodríguez's widow, Juana de Roxas. At the cattle and pig ranch Yacica, Derieux noted the names of three more “cultivateurs attachés au service de la hatte” (cultivators attached to the service of the ranch): the mayoral (foreman) Gregoire, Batiste, and Fernand. Although Derieux assigned every other line item on the inventory an assessed value, he gave none of these cultivators a price.2

The notary, the cultivators, and the towns and plantations where they lived had recently been caught up in an Atlantic storm over territory and the future of slavery. Just a few years earlier, Derieux was living and working in Fort Dauphin, in the French colony of Saint Domingue on western Hispaniola (contemporary Haiti).3 Following the transfer of the Spanish colony of Santo Domingo to the emancipationist French Republic (1795), its annexation by Toussaint Louverture, revolutionary leader and governor of Saint Domingue (1801), and an occupation led by first consul of the French Republic Napoleon Bonaparte (1802), Derieux traveled across the border to work in Santo Domingo. His clients were Spanish-speaking inhabitants from Santo Domingo and French-speaking refugees from Saint Domingue. These refugees carried rumors and news of the movement of troops, the destruction of plantations and crops, and the freedom of slaves in what had been the sugar-producing center of the French Caribbean.4 Freedom's shadow fell over Santo Domingo's slave owners, too; once the French Republic confirmed universal emancipation in its empire and Louverture crossed Hispaniola's border to claim Santo Domingo, the French Republic's emancipation and Louverture's emancipation legally extended to the Spanish colony. Even as Napoleon's forces tried to wrest control of the island from Louverture, they promised to respect emancipation.5

Santo Domingo residents under French rule turned to French notaries like Derieux to organize their local economic transactions, but also to protect their claims to human property and impede the potential emancipation of their unfree labor. Within six months of his visit to Rodríguez's properties, the notary Derieux conducted and transcribed inventories for four more Santiago residents; these included laboring individuals described as cultivateurs and domestiques (domestic servants). Derieux's inventories never stated the precise status of these laboring men, women, and children. He described them variously as persons attached to, or dependent on the land and in the land's service, or listed them after the matter-of-fact statement, “suivant les cultivateurs” (here follow the cultivators), or before the conclusion: “qui sont tous les biens composant la dite habitation/ hatte/ guildive” (which are all the goods that make up the said plantation/ranch/rum house). These laborers were never themselves assigned a monetary value, but they always appeared alongside evaluated property. In fact, in most of Derieux's inventories, they appeared in the place traditionally filled by a list of slaves—immediately following a list of livestock. In a few instances, Derieux linked the cultivateurs and domestiques to color, race, or nation, like the two unnamed “nègresses” in Juana de Roxas's service, a cultivateur named Pierre Congo also in Rodríguez's inventory, and “deux nègres nommés Benita et Marie, une nègritte nommé Petronille, et un nègrillon nommé Antoine” (two blacks named Benita and Marie, a young black girl named Petronille, and a young black boy named Antoine) on a ranch in the wooded outskirts of Puerto Plata. In the five inventories that included cultivateurs and domestiques, the notarial document itself facilitated the transfer of landed property from one owner to another.6

The laboring men, women, and children appeared in Derieux's ledger as though they were in bondage. They enjoyed no volition over their labor or landowner and their homes belonged to the estates where they worked.7 However, Derieux never mentioned the word “slave” in his 1803 notarial ledger, never notarized a slave sale or manumission, and never recorded the presence of enslaved human property, in those words, in the region.8 According to his bookkeeping, there were no slaves in the Santiago region in 1803.

What happened in the colony of Santo Domingo before 1803? Did either Louverture or Napoleon emancipate the colony? How did the presence of Louverture and Napoleon in Spanish Santo Domingo transform slavery? Before they can be considered directly in regard to the moment of Louverturean and Napoleonic influence in Santo Domingo, these questions pass through decades of Dominican historiography that have distorted Haitian influence abroad. Their answers also reverberate beyond the colony of Santo Domingo, dwelling on the ways that slaveholders fortified the institution of slavery against the threat of revolutionary emancipationism and on the spectrum of bondage ranging between slavery and freedom in the Atlantic world. Scholarship on these themes has redefined freedom as an extended process that was slowed by the colonial institutions that survived the end of slavery.9

In the century that followed Louverture's unification, the historical question of whether he had emancipated Santo Domingo's slaves and whether that emancipation mattered at all became a way to express anti-Haitian ideology in the Dominican Republic. An article published in the Dominican Republic in 1874 on Louverture's “invasion” spoke dismissively of his emancipation of the colony's “few existing slaves.”10 The author wrote during the War of Restoration, as proponents of Dominican annexation with Spain tried desperately to quash rebellions led by the joined forces of Dominican and Haitian nationals.11 This article and other accounts of the “tragedy” of Louverturean unification appeared in a compilation published in 1955 as historical propaganda supporting the anti-Haitian antagonism of the twentieth-century Trujillo regime.12 Trujillo's intelligentsia built on and reproduced a historiography that included José Gabriel García's 1867 Compendio of Dominican history, in which Louverture issued his emancipation “without generating any enthusiasm, not even among those [slaves] being favored, with very few exceptions.”13

Following Trujillo's assassination, a new wave of Dominican scholars read this scholarship and offered revised and nuanced accounts of the parallel histories of Santo Domingo and Haiti. The new wave presented the contradictions of Haiti's revolutionary ideology in Santo Domingo, extending the analysis of classic works such as Antonio del Monte y Tejada's 1892 Historia. The Historia presents Louverture as “the most distinguished negro of all those who have held command of this island” while unflinchingly describing forced labor in the Santiago region under Louverture's General Dessalines, who received unlimited power to “force the negros to work under fear of penalty.”14 In the new historiographical wave, too, Louverture became the one who emancipated Santo Domingo's masses and integrated the races, even as he initiated a new system of dependency.15 This attention to the longed-for but unfulfilled promise of Haiti across the border continues to inform Dominican scholarship today. See, among others, Quisqueya Lora's work on forced labor during the unification of the island under Haitian President Jean-Pierre Boyer and Anne Eller's study of Dominican-Haitian anticolonial collaborations during the late nineteenth century War of Restoration.16

But did Louverture free Santo Domingo's slaves? Until very recently, historians were reading nineteenth-century Dominican historiography and the emancipation clause in the 1801 constitution as straightforward evidence for an island-wide emancipation under Louverture.17 Historians of Haiti and Santo Domingo now believe that Louverture did not emancipate Santo Domingo, referring to administrative correspondence, memoirs, Louverture's labor and agrarian policies, and the indirect evidence offered by the fact that plantation owners appeared content under his rule.18 However, these kinds of sources cannot describe either on-the-ground conditions of enslavement or the process through which the institution of slavery changed as the colony passed out of Louverture's control.

This study brings together ecclesiastical and notarial material produced locally in the colony between 1801 and 1803 in order to chart how slaveholding and slave trading transformed under the influence of Louverture and Napoleon. Derieux's notarial ledger, spanning the years 1803–04, is the only extant colonial-era notarial record from the north of the colony. The north coastal region includes the towns of Puerto Plata, Montechristi, and Samaná; the north central region, known as the Cibao, includes the towns of Santiago, Cotui, and La Vega.19 Derieux's ledger is housed today in the Archives Nationales d'Outre-Mer in southern France, having left the island following the end of French political control in Hispaniola. The Dominican Republic's Archivo General de la Nación contains notarial and town council records for three rural towns in Santo Domingo (El Seibo, Higüey, and Bayaguana) under early French rule.20 Local ecclesiastical archives contain contemporary sacramental records from the parishes of the same three towns, from the capital city of Santo Domingo and its outskirts, and from one town in the central valley. These sources show that under the pressure of competing political ideologies, slave owners created hidden slave markets, new forms of bondage, and new guises for old forms of bondage.

Shifting Sovereignties

Freedom by manumission or emancipation in the Atlantic world was uncertain, reversible, fragile, and “paper thin.”21 Freed people in late colonial Latin America and the wider Caribbean drew on a corpus of slave rights that grew out of the practice of law and helped to secure and protect freedom. However, in the case of revolutionary emancipation, political instability and a weak state posed challenges to freed people. Slaves might be freed by law, but interpretation, jurisdiction, and even the law itself could change.22

Santo Domingo became French territory in 1795. Under the Treaty of Basel, the Spanish crown awarded the colony to France in exchange for new frontier lines along the Pyrenees and a withdrawal of Spanish forces from the Haitian Revolution. At that point, the French agreed to give their new colonists a grace year to emigrate to Spain's other American colonies with their property, including their enslaved human property.23 In the Spanish Americas, slavery was legal; Spain would not issue a general emancipation until the late nineteenth century. France, on the other hand, had abolished slavery on the continent and in its colonies the previous year (1794).24 Despite a 1798 decree that incorporated colonies as departments of France and guaranteed that they would share the same laws, the French Republic's emancipationism did not disband the institution of slavery in Santo Domingo. In fact, some of Santo Domingo's slaves fell deeper into slavery following the decree, when the colony's wealthiest inhabitants fled with their slaves into Cuba and other slave-holding territories.25 However, many slave owners stayed, and they continued to hold slaves and claim the children of their slaves as human property. Meanwhile, for the first five years of French control, the colony's Spanish colonial structure—its administrators, court, councils, and laws—remained in place under the watch of a single French representative who could do little to bring the colony under French law by himself.26

On the western side of the island, France had been trying since 1791 to quell an antislavery rebellion that had exploded into an anticolonial revolution. The French Revolution brewing across the Atlantic only exacerbated Saint Domingue's instability; following the execution of the French monarch in 1793, both Great Britain and Spain sent military forces to fight republican France on both sides of Hispaniola. Scrambling under this military pressure, Saint Domingue's civil leaders issued the colony's first, limited emancipation decree, with many to follow. By the time the French general Napoleon Bonaparte toppled the Directory in November 1799, slavery had been formally abolished in all French territories and the black insurgent leader Toussaint Louverture was the de facto governor in chief of Saint Domingue.27

As first consul of France, Napoleon quickly rescinded the 1798 decree that integrated all colonies into France's legal and governing structure. The colonies could now be governed by particular laws, which meant that slavery in the colonies could again be legal. Even before knowledge of the provision's repeal had crossed to the Americas, Toussaint Louverture began to fortify his own position as governor of Saint Domingue. He marched into neighboring Santo Domingo and took possession of the capital city in January 1801, claiming that his annexation justly responded to the “abomination” of open slave-trading in Santo Domingo and that it carried out the unity outlined in the Treaty of Basel.28 Within five months, Louverture convened a constitutional assembly with representatives from both sides of the island. Hispaniola's new constitution pronounced all inhabitants “free and French.”29 Emancipation had come, yet again, to Santo Domingo.

Louverture's annexation and constitution prompted immediate French intervention on Hispaniola. Bonaparte declared Louverture's annexation of the eastern part of the island null and made explicit plans to disarm the entire island. His brother-in-law General Charles Victor Emmanuel Leclerc arrived in Santo Domingo in January 1802 with informal instructions to re-enslave “the Spanish part.”30 Over the next month, Leclerc won all of the island's major cities.31 Many of these cities surrendered under the condition or promise that Napoleon's military generals would not restore slavery.32 But within several months, Napoleon's legislature reversed emancipation in several of its other colonies.33 Saint Domingue and the former Spanish colony could be next.34 Leclerc's forces advanced against Saint Domingue's colonial forces and might have won Hispaniola but for the devastation caused by yellow fever during the rainy season in the late summer. By the end of 1803, the French had abandoned Saint Domingue in the west, defeated.35 Santo Domingo in the east had remained a French possession ever since Leclerc's arrival on the island, and its rule passed now to Napoleon's General Jean-Louis Ferrand. Ferrand led an colony-wide campaign to re-enslave Haitian blacks and fortify the institution of slavery in Santo Domingo.

Extant historiography on Leclerc and his generals suggest that he was an emancipator, or that he was anxious to maintain emancipation, or the aura of emancipation, under his rule. Graham Nessler has shown that in 1802, Leclerc's general Kerverseau anxiously defended himself against rumors that he had authorized slave sales, and his correspondence scrupulously avoided using the word “slave” to describe bound laborers. Kerverseau wanted to make it appear that slavery, or at least the slave trade, did not operate in Santo Domingo under Napoleon.36 Derieux's 1803 notarial ledger, empty of all “slaves,” also gives the impression of legal compliance with emancipation. The examples in the following section suggest that compliance with Napoleonic emancipation meant different things depending on the region, but never emancipation.

Freed by Law, Bound in Practice

At the beginning of 1801 the interim vicar of Santo Domingo city's cathedral, Agustín Madrigal, interrupted a list of baptisms in the cathedral's sacramental register with a note on the arrival of Louverture. “Santo Domingo, twenty-sixth of January of 1801, handing over of the capital to the new Republic after midday.”37 The capital city sat on the southern coast of Santo Domingo, and probably had news of Louverture's movements several days before his forces arrived.38 Apart from the flight of residents upon his arrival, Louverture's year-long annexation of Santo Domingo passed quietly in the city.39 The Napoleonic regime that ousted Louverture from the city was much more disorienting for city residents, at least for members of its religious orders.

Following their ousting of the Louverturean regime from the capital city, Leclerc's General Kerverseau's forces also nationalized all buildings and all movable property of religious corporations.40 The city's Predicadores (preaching order, or Dominicans) wrote to the Spanish crown in 1802 and again in 1803 complaining of their poor treatment under the French. They had remained in Santo Domingo city following the Treaty of Basel, delaying their plan to emigrate to Cuba as they tried to find a buyer for their sugar estate, which included extensive land, 64 slaves, and sugar-refining tools. Leclerc's government sequestered all these belongings and more, leaving the community with only the clothes on their backs.41 Although the Predicadores’ slaves disappeared from the capital city's records after Leclerc claimed them for the French state, they did not gain their freedom.

Throughout Louverture's reign over the colony, Santo Domingo city residents openly held slaves, a population that included the Predicadores’ enslaved men and women and many more. The city cathedral's baptismal records preserve evidence of continued enslavement within the population. Parish priests across colonial Latin America typically recorded the enslaved or free status of the individuals who received Christian burial or the sacraments of baptism and marriage. Depending on the kind of record, a priest might also set down an individual's color, occupation, parentage, place of origin, or in the case of an enslaved subject, legal owner. The appearance of enslaved people in a sacramental register was unremarkable, as sacraments were available to all enslaved people in the Catholic world of colonial Latin America. In the baptism of an enslaved child, a priest did not even have to mention the child's status, given that in Spanish America and elsewhere, a child's status followed that of his or her mother.

In the city cathedral in 1801 and 1802, the interim vicar Agustín Madrigal buried two individuals described as enslaved: Francisco, slave of don Josef Sánchez and Juan, slave of the priest Nicolás Valenzuela.42 In 1801 the same priest baptized 30 enslaved infants and two adult slaves. This was approximately one-third the number of slaves he had baptized in each of the three previous years (see Table 1) The drop in slave baptisms at the Santo Domingo city cathedral could be evidence of a poorly executed emancipation that prompted some, but not all, slave owners to free their enslaved property. It is more likely, however, that baptism numbers fell because of the number of slave owners who emigrated upon Louverture's entrance into Santo Domingo.

Table 1 Baptisms at Santa María de la Encarnación, 1799–1801

Source: AHASD, Santo Domingo Santa María de la Encarnación Baptisms Book 22 (1798–1802). Family Search.

Residents of the capital area also openly held slaves under the subsequent Napoleonic military occupation. In 1802, General Kerverseau put to death the enslaved leader of a slave rebellion on the plantations Camba Abajo and Camba Arriba, located on the western outskirts of the city of Santo Domingo, near present-day San Cristóbal.43 Baptism records from Santa Ana, the plantation chapel belonging to Lower Camba, provide evidence of slave ownership by Santo Domingo city residents in 1803. In May and June, the itinerant priest of that chapel (Bernardo Correa y Cidrón) baptized five enslaved infants; these were the children of enslaved adults held by three prominent residents of Santo Domingo city.44 That same year in Baní, a day's ride to the west of the capital, a parish priest baptized the infant Bernardo, natural (illegitimate) son of Josefa “esc[lav]a de Ynes Guerrero y de Damian esc[lavo] de Santiago Castillo.”45

In the eastern plains, inhabitants of the towns of Bayaguana and El Seibo left records that also show continuity of slaveholding during both the Louverturean and Napoleonic periods. Bayaguana lay a day's ride north of Santo Domingo city and directly on the overland trade route between Santo Domingo and Santiago. El Seibo was connected to Santo Domingo city by way of Bayaguana and its own trade route, and lay approximately 80 miles northeast of the capital city.46 These were small, towns, self-sufficient but connected; people from the capital city and from the north valley and north coastal regions settled in Bayaguana. Twenty years before the arrival of Louverture, Bayaguana had a population of a thousand residents, and El Seibo four thousand.47 Both towns were known for their cattle ranching, although residents also grew foodstuffs for local consumption and harvested mahogany for export. Because most ranching took place on communally used lands, residents of the plains prized their movable property.48

Slave owners of this region continued to hold their human property during and after Louverture's rule. In February 1801, the parish priest of Bayaguana's San Juan Bautista church recorded a marriage between Antonio Guerrero, esclavo, and María de Vivas, “liberta negra de Guinea” (freed woman born in Africa).49 In October of 1801, now several months since Louverture's constitutional convention, the parish priest of El Seibo's Santa Cruz church baptized two infants, the children of enslaved mothers.50 The priest, Ygnacio Morillas, made it abundantly clear that these children inherited their mothers’ enslavement, describing one of the baptized children as “Siprian … hijo natural de Maria del Carmen de Castro[,] esclavos” (meaning that both were slaves).51 The following year, 1802, the same priest baptized another child of enslaved parents, “Lianara, hija lexitima de Felipe Romero y Dionisia Sorrillas[,] esclavos de Juan Sorrillas.”52 Enslaved people continued to appear in Ygnacio Morillas's registry in the ensuing years.53

Notarial acts from the eastern plains also testify that people still held slaves in this period. In March 1801, a Bayaguana resident sold her slave Julián to Julián's father, Nicolás Ortiz,in an act of manumission by purchase.54 In 1802, three El Seibo residents used testaments to claim African-descent people as property or to give them away as gifts. The municipal officer George Herrera stated in his 1802 will that he had commissioned a Santiago resident to sell a 15-year-old mulatto boy “de mi pertenencia” (belonging to me). The boy had run away, perhaps trying to reach a region where slaveholding and slave trading were not openly practiced. Herrera also gave “la negrita Dominga” to his daughter and claimed that a fellow El Seibo citizen still owed him 283 pesos for the past sale of “un negro de mi pertenencia llamado Fernando.” 55 Another testator, María García, recorded a gift to “mi domestica María” of approximately one-quarter of Maria's value.56 In a third will, deposited in October 1802 at the municipality, several familiar people surface. Juan Portalatín Sorrillas recorded a gift to his son-in-law of the “negro Felipe y su muger (his wife) Dionisia.” Felipe and Dionisia were the same couple who baptized the child Lianara seven months earlier, when they were recorded as “esclavos.”57 Throughout the years that followed, enslaved people continued to appear as property in the legal records of the eastern plains, in letters of manumission, slave sales, inventories, and other notarial acts.58

In the capital city and the eastern plains, slaveholding and slave rights had features consonant with slavery elsewhere in colonial Latin America. The baptismal register of Santo Domingo city's cathedral includes an entry in 1801 for Pedro, “nacido liberto según me informe su respetivo amo (born free, as his master tells me).59 It follows that except in extraordinary circumstances like Pedro's, Santo Domingo city's slave owners continued to claim the progeny of their enslaved women.60 When the Bayaguana slave Julián received his manumission by purchase and the El Seibo domestica María received a gift of one-quarter of her value, they exercised the slave rights of self-purchase and coartación (the right to fix one's sale price), respectively.61 In colonial Latin America, coartación often led to self-purchase, although an enslaved person might equally be purchased and freed by a parent, spouse, sibling, fictive kin, or business partner. These slave rights were not unilaterally honored by slave owners or judicial figures, and were often tied to local custom; coartación, for example, was an extremely rare practice in the French legal system.62 Thus slavery in this region of Santo Domingo preserved its Spanish character even under French influence.”

A Depressed Market in Slaves

Although Louverture's emancipation did not free the enslaved populations of Santo Domingo city, El Seibo, or Bayaguana, the political event of annexation may have depressed the intercolonial slave market. Adult slave baptisms provide a way to gauge rates of importation of enslaved adults into the city. Slaves in the Spanish Americas usually received baptism as adults if they were newcomers to the empire. However, at the turn of the century, Santo Domingo did not have strong connections to the transatlantic slave trade, and consequently, an adult baptism meant that a slave had arrived via the intercolonial (usually intra-Caribbean) slave trade or the intercolonial travel of the slave's owners. The absence of adult slaves in Santo Domingo baptismal registers would suggest the opposite, that intercolonial trade had trickled or stopped.

In the three years prior to 1801, between 11 and 25 adult slaves per year received baptism in the Santo Domingo city cathedral, as shown in Table 1. Many baptisms were officiated for slaves owned by established plantation owners of Santo Domingo city. Their baptisms often occurred in series, over a day or two, suggesting that these baptized individuals were purchases from a recently arrived group of slaves. These patterns support an analysis that uses adult baptisms as an approximation for the vitality of the city's slave market rather than some other measure, for example, the rate of immigration of slave owners into the city. In 1801, Agustín Madrigal baptized only two enslaved adults, Francisco and Maria Nicolasa, in the city cathedral.63 That only two enslaved adults received baptism at the cathedral in 1801 perhaps indicates that both transatlantic and intra-Caribbean slave trading stalled in Santo Domingo city that year.64 At minimum, it suggests that Santo Domingo had a small slave market prior to 1801 and a nonexistent or nearly nonexistent market in 1801. Even if slaveholding in Santo Domingo was acceptable under Louverture, the intercolonial market in adult human property fell dramatically during his regime.

In the eastern plains too, for all of the apparent continuity in slaveholding, the slave trade may also have decreased or changed in other ways between 1801 and 1802. El Seibo's interim notary Santiago Sogreras left evidence of recent or ongoing slave sales in last wills and testaments in the year 1802, but recorded no distinct notarized slave sales in 1801 or 1802.65 Bayaguana's archive shows a similar gap in slave sales: following the March 1801 manumission of Julián, the town's interim notary recorded no other manumissions or slave sales until 1804, when residents again sold slaves openly.66 Slave owners of the eastern plains were still willing to sell, bequeath, or inherit slaves, or as was the case with María García, to allow her enslaved domestic servant María to purchase herself. However, they were not openly buying slaves—the only notarized slave purchases in El Seibo and Bayaguana were auto-manumissions.

Although there is one time that slave owners did enter the slave market in Bayaguana, there is almost no legal trace of their transactions. The will of George Herrera, mentioned above, includes two slave sales, one past and one in progress, but neither sale had its own notarial record. Did Herrera intentionally avoid documentation because slave purchases were taboo or even illegal between 1801 and 1802? Or was the gap in slave sales just that, caused unintentionally by the disorganization of a notary or the legal mess left after a political transition. Perhaps the slave market stalled for lack of specie on the part of potential slave buyers.

But barring these possibilities, slave traders would have hesitated to skip the notary's office. Notarized slave sales protected a substantial monetary investment on the part of both buyer and seller. But if slaveholding or slave trading were illegal, slave owners like Herrera would have chosen to sell their enslaved human property without a notary or to notarize the sale under very vague terms. The evidence is too scant to know for sure. Certainly, the political events of 1801 and 1802 prompted potential slave buyers to distrust the value of enslaved property and avoid the documented, intra-colonial slave trade.

Slavery under New Terms

The proximity in time of the military entrances of Louverture and then Napoleon probably slowed the slave market. Their regimes may also have triggered a transformation in the status of bound laborers. Across the colony, the term used to describe bound people, esclavo, gained new modifiers or disappeared altogether. This linguistic transformation sprang up in the northern coast and north-central valley, as we have seen in Derieux's notarial register, and in the capital region and the eastern plains.

Between 1801 and 1802, the El Seibo public notary Santiago Sogreras used only the words negra/o (and its diminutive forms), doméstica, and cultivador, to refer to bound laborers. In the local records left by the town during these years, only the local parish registry continued to used the word esclavo. Doméstico/a and cultivador/a were novel terms in Santo Domingo's legal system, although they often appeared in descriptions as laborers belonging to a particular person or persons—as a slave might be described. In Bayaguana too, these terms surfaced in the records left by parish priest Josef Moreno Herrera. In May 1801, he witnessed and recorded the marriage of Andrés Rosario to Dominga Mexia,domestica” of Juan Marcos Peguero and Josefa Mexia, and the marriage of Juan Peguero to Ysidora Geraldo, “ambos domesticos” of the same Peguero and Mexia.67 In 1803, the same priest buried Gregorio Paredes, “domestico del Presbítero D Geronimo de Paredes y perteneciente a la Republica.” By 1803 the term esclavo had reappeared in El Seibo's notarial records and Bayaguana's sacramental records.68 Recordkeepers sometimes combined esclavo with these novel terms.69 That year near San Cristóbal to the west of the capital, the priest Bernardo Correa y Cidrón described an infant's mother as a cultivadora esclava (cultivating slave).70

In Higüey, in the far eastern region of the plains, the French presence also introduced new vocabulary for slavery. A town of just 500 inhabitants, Higüey lay approximately 100 miles from Santo Domingo city. It was accessible to the rest of the colony only by way of El Seibo or via the Yuna river, which opened out to the sea. Despite its relative distance from the colony's more populated northern and southern coasts, a chapel dedicated to the Virgin near Higüey drew pilgrims, and the capital city often called on the city to deliver cattle products, especially meat.71 Here, as in Bayaguana and El Seibo, access to labor mattered much more than access to land.

Saint Dominguan and French contestations offered Higüey residents new options for recording and preserving legal information, even as these events disrupted local forms of rule.72 Prior to the arrival of Louverture, town dwellers baptized their children both for the spiritual membership that it provided and for the very practical purpose of setting down in the public record the children's parentage, free or enslaved status, legitimate or illegitimate status, and spiritual kin. Under Louverturean and French rule, residents could baptize their newborn infants at the church and also visit the town's secular notary to register these births. In most cases, a godparent, father, or head of household registered the new birth with the notary or municipal scribe, though some extended kin also performed the duty.73

From October 1801 through the end of Leclerc's military occupation in 1803, Higüey's French-language municipal notary registered 17 individuals, including 16 newborns described as cultivators: “Seven months and eleven days ago a cultivator (cultivatrice) was born, illegitimate daughter of the cultivator Maria Martina who belongs to Noel and Pere, inhabitants of Jouma … [the testator] states that she is named Marie Lucrece [and] her godparents are the free black Juan Soriano and the cultivator Petrona Guerrero.”74 Birth records for five of these 16 children also appeared in the San Dionisio de Higüey baptismal registry. There, the priest Antonio Tozo Ramírez described the children by name and recorded their status as son or daughter of a morena (black) domestica. A sixth boy of the same status, Segundo, also appeared in Tozo Ramírez's sacramental register, although he was not registered in the book of the secular notary, Fernando Oliver.75

These terms began to appear at the time of Louverture's entrance to the colony, coinciding with the end of the circulation of the word esclavo. Only a year earlier, in 1800, the priest Tozo Ramírez had baptized three children of esclavos, named thus. But beginning in 1801, no esclavos of any kind appear in the baptismal registry until baptisms re-commenced years later, in 1813. In the secular registry, which began in 1801 and continued through 1806, the words negro/ nègre and esclavo/esclave also did not surface until 1805 and 1806 respectively. The terms cultivateur/trice and doméstico/a arose in coordination across Higüey institutions and corresponded with linguistic shifts across Santo Domingo.

Higüey's cultivateurs and morenos domésticos were like most chattel slaves of the colonial Spanish Americas. Cultivators and domestics belonged to a particular person. The notary Fernando Oliver described the cultivatrice Patricia Columna as the “fille legitime du cultivateur José Columna et de la cultivatrice Petronila son espouse legitime, appartenants au citoyen Matheo Sánchez” (legitimate daughter of the cultivator José Columna and the cultivator Petronila his legitimate wife, belonging to the citizen Matheo Sánchez).76 If Petronila's parents belonged to someone, then Higüey's cultivators were private property, at least according to the notary. The parish priest Ramirez also linked the parents of baptized children to a person who received their labor, though his records were less clear on the nature of their relationship. The same infant in Tozo Ramírez's registry was the “hija legitima de Josef Columna y de Petronila, morenos domésticos d[e] Matheo Sánchez” (legitimate daughter of Josef Columna and of Petronila, black domestics of Matheo Sánchez).77 Wherever the same infant was recorded redundantly, the notary registered the child as an infant cultivateur, and the priest as the child of black domestics. Given that these terms were used interchangeably, they referred not to a person's occupation but to his or her status.78

Like slaves, Higüey's cultivateurs and morenos domésticos conferred their bound status on their progeny.79 The notary Oliver almost always identified the children of cultivateurs as cultivateurs themselves. These infant cultivators were presumed the property of their mother's owner unless otherwise noted. In some rare circumstances, infant “cultivators” gained freedom from this bound state. In 1802 and 1803, the respective owners of newborns Petrona Alcantaria Irisarri and Tomasina Sedano confirmed the free status of the infants, in both instances in recognition of the good services of their parents.80 Petrona Alcantaria Irisarri's younger sister, Paula Yrisarri, born one year later, was not so lucky, as her registration did not record her freedom.81 However, the sisters’ daily lives probably looked quite similar, given that most manumitted children lived with their enslaved parents.

Because Higüey's notarial records are otherwise missing during this period, it is difficult to describe the local cultivator system with greater detail. Questions remain concerning the market in cultivators, their opportunities for self-purchase as adults, their experience of freedom as freed infants, and their transition back to the classic institution of slavery. By 1804, General Jean-Louis Ferrand had not only established control of Santo Domingo city but also replaced local administrators with agents loyal to his regime and to the institution of slavery.82 Cultivators disappeared, and esclavos again populated the town's administrative documentation in birth registries, slave sales, manumissions, and testaments.

The appearance of the terms “cultivador/a” and “doméstica/o” in the south coast and plains regions of the colony corresponds exactly with the moment in which Santo Domingo received the revolutionary emancipationism of the Haitian Revolution under Louverture. With the entrance of foreign soldiers, seamen, and administrators, Spanish speakers heard and adopted new language to describe their enslaved property. Perhaps enslaved people themselves demanded the new language in Santo Domingo, hearing news of Louverture's emancipated cultivateurs in Saint Domingue or of Louverture's liberating constitution. The new language, though not representing actual freedom, may suggest that enslaved people issued their own limited emancipation-in-name in the face of ambivalent colonial enforcement.

On the other hand, perhaps notaries, priests, and slaveholders circulated these terms only to protect their only slightly modified system of slaveholding. In Saint Domingue, a cultivateur was a legally free person, but in Santo Domingo a cultivateur was privately claimed property with no control over his or her progeny or labor. Words borrowed from emancipationist rhetoric, even when intentionally emptied of their meaning, still gave the aura of compliance with emancipation and could help to secure claims to ownership against the real or perceived possibility of a general emancipation—so long as bound laborers were not slaves, they could not be freed by any standing or future act of emancipation. This strategy was not unique to Santo Domingo. Slave owners across the Atlantic world relied on linguistic ambiguity to prop up their personal claims to ownership.83

Emancipation was a formal legal event, a moment that historians can date precisely using political circulars, military correspondence, and plantation records. It was also an uncertain social event, as it required the circulation of information and the cooperation of slave owners. The emancipations promulgated by France and Saint Domingue in Santo Domingo extended to the colony only in a treaty or a constitution, and perhaps in written and spoken circulars. These legal and mostly written events were still potent, however, as they signaled to slave owners the unnerving possibility that slaveholding and slave trading might in fact be punishable in the future. Rather than loosen the bonds of slaves, however, emancipation in this form prepared Santo Domingo's slave owners to harden the lines that would protect the institution of slavery.

A New Kind of Slavery

If we link the appearance of novel terms for bondage to Louverture's entrance into Santo Domingo, how should we interpret their persistence throughout Napoleon's military occupation? Despite the Napoleonic vision for slavery's open practice on both sides of the island, slave owners in 1803 in the Cibao region felt compelled to hide or rename their slaves. The rum refiners, field laborers, ranchers, and domestics in Derieux's ledger appear to have been purposefully erased from a legal record that was supposed to leave no tracks of the operations of slaveholders or the slave market. Here we consider whether the slave owners of the northern region not only changed how they referred to their bound laborers, but also transformed the nature of their claims and hold on them.

Derieux's notarial records are not evidence of a post-emancipation apprenticeship. Elsewhere in the Caribbean, colonial officials issued emancipation alongside a system of apprenticeship designed on the model of gradual abolition. This model was intended to maintain agricultural production while granting nominal freedom. In post-emancipation Saint Domingue and Guadeloupe, colonial commissioners criminalized most forms of non-agricultural labor and promised former slaves either wages or a proportion of the agricultural goods they produced. In post-emancipation Jamaica, former slaves working in agricultural settings might receive meager wages, pay rent on the land they worked, or pay rent and receive wages simultaneously.84 These forms of emancipation created paper trails. Colonial officials distributed emancipation decrees in broadsides and discussed their implementation in correspondence. Formerly enslaved people used notarial offices to exercise their rights to property, and ex-slaves entered into labor contracts with landowners. The Cibao's archives do not contain any evidence of a citywide replacement of slavery with apprenticeships, and Derieux did notarize at least one labor contract between apparently free people in 1803, suggesting that city residents were accustomed to forming contracts for free labor.85 None of the cultivateurs and domestiques of Derieux's notarial register appear anywhere else in his register, and the only other contemporary reference suggests that these individuals were slaves under another name.

Santiago's system of labor looked very similar to a much earlier colonial solution to the weakening of slavery. In mid colonial Brazil, following a prohibition against indigenous slavery, the inhabitants of São Paulo developed a system of attaching indigenous people and their labor to private individuals, who held all the rights of slave owners except for the right to sell a bound person. In this system, called administração, Paulistas evaded formal prohibitions against indigenous slavery by holding indigenous people and transferring them through inventories, dowries, and bequests. Administração was formally protected by São Paulo local law even as it openly defied imperial mandates. Judicial records that accompany São Paulo notarial records demonstrate that recordkeepers were quite open about what they were doing, namely hiding the legal trace of illegal slavery.86 Court records and judicial orders have not survived in Santiago, but the similarity of notarial content between São Paulo and Santo Domingo's Cibao suggests that inhabitants of the Cibao also self-consciously shaped their local notarial documents to protect private claims to enslaved human property in an unpredictable legal environment.

The Cibao's slave owners changed the terms of their ownership of their slaves by linking them to their land. The bound laborers in Derieux's ledger were “attached” to estates. This language of attachment probably entered Santo Domingo in early 1801, when Toussaint Louverture mandated that the emancipated agricultural laborers of Hispaniola remain “attached” to their plantations.87 During the Leclerc invasion of Saint Domingue, agricultural law required that cultivateurs be attached to estates.88 The same term, attachment, also defined post-emancipation labor in late eighteenth-century Guadeloupe.89 In theory, attachment should have limited the movement of free persons. In 1803 Santiago and Puerto Plata, however, the state of attachment served as the substance of an enslaved laborers’ unfreedom. The cultivateurs and domestiques were no longer moveable property. They were instead assets of real estate, fixed to the land itself by the notarized activity of a new market in bound labor.90

Slave ownership in this context took on characteristics of slavery in its heyday in neighboring Saint Domingue. Plantation owners there considered slaves so necessary to the economy that when they sold their estates, the sale often included the enslaved people who had labored on that land.91 This practice departed from the Code Noir, which characterized enslaved persons as meubles (movable property) but had legal roots in much older systems of land tenure in France. By the early eighteenth century, an act from the metropole defined enslaved persons as “appendages and instruments of the land.”92 In the case of Santo Domingo, affixing slaves to land protected slave owners from both emancipation and potential volatility in the market in human property. If slave trading were or were about to become illegal, “attached” laborers increased the value of landed property, without the need to consider a stalled slave market.

Once the transfer of human persons became fixed in property transfers and no longer depended on an exchange of currency, Santiago's slaves lost an important escape path out of slavery. Self-purchase was a right available to all slaves in colonial Latin America, even if it remained an extravagance out of reach for most slaves. However, it depended on an impartial monetary economy that assigned value to people. Enslaved people with access to cash or loans could enter into this economy and purchase themselves or others. They would then protect their newfound freedom by registering this act with a notary. Derieux notarized no manumissions or slave sales in 1803; both were the kind of legal transaction that typically filled notarial registers. Sacramental records, the other source that might have held acts of manumission, are lost or destroyed for Santiago at this date. It appears that typical manumission paths, such as self-purchase or an owners’ donation of freedom, were closed in this period though it is impossible to know that with certainty. Nonetheless, on their own, Derieux's notarial records suggest that Santiago's form of slaveholding suppressed the region's slave trade, taking enslaved people outside a monetary economy and thereby limiting their ability to break from their owners or landowners. The Cibao's system of “attached” laborers was a regional phenomenon, the result of close ties to neighboring Saint Domingue. The archives of the eastern plains and capital city contain nothing similar; residents of that region held slaves, cultivators, or domestics as personal property, and did not use land sales or inventories to facilitate the transfer of human property.

Saint Domingue's port city Cap Français was a boat-ride away from Santo Domingo's north coast and lay on an overland route connecting to Santo Domingo's northern interior that passed through Fort Dauphin. Across the eighteenth century, the Santo Domingo port towns of Montechristi and Puerto Plata enjoyed a great deal of French and Saint Dominguan sea traffic in goods and news, while Santiago and other Cibao towns provided Saint Domingue with cattle via overland routes that crossed the border. This trade continued across the north coast and north valley, even as rival troops and warships battled to gain control of the region.93 The region's traditional connections to Saint Domingue built local sympathy for Saint Domingue's revolution. As the revolution played out in the north, many Cibao residents made the pragmatic decision to remain connected to whatever leadership and economy was beneficial, nearby, and powerful. It is very likely that inhabitants along Santo Domingo's interior border fostered similar loyalties.

Saint Domingue certainly maintained strong connections to Santo Domingo's north coast, north interior, and border region throughout the Haitian Revolution. Napoleon's troops claimed to control the Cibao from early 1802 through 1803. When French General Ferrand lost command of Fort Dauphin in September 1803, he fled first to Santiago.94 However, throughout 1804 and possibly through 1803, residents of the Cibao paid taxes to Haitian revolutionary leader Jean-Jacques Dessalines, not to Ferrand.95 Pockets of the region remained loyal to Saint Domingue's revolutionary forces.96 Loyalty encouraged residents to comply with Saint Dominguan emancipation even when compliance did not extend so far as ideological support for the end of slavery. At the same time, fear of revolutionary punishment for slavery from across the permeable border prompted other slave-owning residents to reform their institution of slavery. Slave owners in the north central valley and north coast may have begun this transformation earlier, in 1803, when Derieux wrote his ledger. They may even have started the process much earlier, when Louverture entered Santo Domingo in 1801, or when Leclerc's troops arrived in 1802.


Even though Santo Domingo residents never had to go so far as to free their slaves under either Louverture or Napoleon, the fact of legal emancipation still shaped the institution of slavery in the colony. The fact that Santo Domingo fell under nominally emancipationist governments was enough to turn slave owners away from the colony's intercolonial and intra-colonial slave trade. In Santo Domingo city, intercolonial trade slowed to a trickle or stopped. In the plains during the Louverturean regime, only enslaved people themselves, and not slave owners, made notarized slave purchases, and these were purchases for manumission. In the north, where orders were disregarded and jurisdiction changed daily, slave owners made more drastic changes to the slave trade, moving their human property from the slave market to estate sales. Perhaps northern residents reacted more to the political ideology of the successful revolution, and less to the empty threat of Santo Domingo's emancipations.

Atlantic emancipation often preserved elements of enslavement in the freedom of the newly freed. The echoes of slavery continued to ring on Haiti's soil long after independence and the definitive emancipation of slaves. Haitian leaders Alexandre Pétion and Henri Christophe both criminalized non-agricultural and non-contractual work, drawing on Saint Domingue colonial laws that did the same.97 Following Santo Domingo's final emancipation in 1822 under Haitian President Jean-Pierre Boyer, an island-wide Rural Code required all persons not engaged as professionals, artisans, or domestics to work in agriculture as cultivateurs. Quisqueya Lora has shown that the cultivateurs of 1822 were free insofar as they could not be sold and could legally hold property, but they were nonetheless attached to plantations, faced anti-vagrancy persecution, and were not guaranteed wages.98 Perhaps Hispaniola's residents felt prepared for Boyer's limited emancipation and extractive labor system. The entrance of Louverture and Napoleon in Santo Domingo gave rise to new vocabularies and new legal avenues for protecting the institution of slavery, and the exigency to do just that. As emancipation edged into the colony, notaries and slave owners adapted legal customs and language to reflect the imprecise status of slaves freed only by distant law. Their activity kept Santo Domingo's bound men and women within the ever-flexible institution of slavery.

1. Saint Domingue's revolutionary leaders described freed, formerly enslaved people as cultivateur s. The term appears, for example, in Louverture's October 12, 1800, “Règlement relatif a la culture,” cited in Schoelcher, Victor, Vie de Toussaint Louverture (Paris: Karthala, 1982), 427430. I translate the term as “cultivator,” and not as one of the more familiar terms, “farmer” or “laborer,” in order to communicate its unusual character. In Santo Domingo, the term cultivateur began to circulate only upon the entrance of Louverture and was used almost exclusively to describe laborers in an emancipation and post-emancipation context. The term circulated again following the colony's final emancipation in 1822 under Haitian President Jean-Pierre Boyer, and at this point it acquired a more general meaning.

2. Inventory of Dominique Rodríguez estate, January-February 1803/Nivôse-Pluviôse an 11, Archives Nationales d'Outre-Mer [hereafter ANOM], Dépôt des papiers publics des colonies [hereafter DPPC], Notariat, Saint-Domingue 485.

3. See the pronouncement by Donatien de Rochambeau establishing Derieux as notary in Fort Dauphin. “Arrête,” January 20, 1803/Nivôse 30 an 11, Art. VII, published in Affiches Américaines de Saint-Domingue, [hereafter BNF Gallica].

4. Julius Sherrard, “The Common Wind: Currents of Afro-American Communication in the Era of the Haitian Revolution” (PhD diss.: Duke University, 1986).

5. Louverture, Toussaint, The Memoir of General Toussaint Louverture, Girard, Philippe, ed. and trans. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), 65, 75.

6. Inventory of Dominique de la Mota estate, March 22, 1803/Germinal 1 an 11, ANOM DPPC, Notariat, Saint-Domingue 485; Inventory of Pichardo estate, April 4, 1803, ANOM DPPC, Notariat, Saint-Domingue 485; Land sale by Joseph Cabiro to Manuel del Moya, May 18, 1803/Floréal 28 an 11, ANOM DPPC, Notariat, Saint-Domingue 485; Inventory of Manuel Almonte estate, June 6, 1803/Prairial 21 an 11, ANOM DPPC, Notariat, Saint-Domingue 485. Not all domestiques were enslaved; in the only other instance Derieux recorded this term in his notarial book, he described a free, likely formerly enslaved, domestic servant, the citoyenne Guerece, as attached to the service of a person, rather than a place. The notary clearly described Guerece as a free woman with rights to property and free movement. See the donation of land to the “citoyenne Guerece ma fidelle domestique pour les bons et agreables service quelle m‘a rendu tant en sante qu‘en maladie depuis 16 ans qu‘elle est attachée a mon service,” in Testament of Jean Menil, May 28, 1803/Prairial 8 1803, ANOM DPPC, Notariat, Saint-Domingue 485.

7. Inventory of Dominique Rodríguez estate, January-February 1803/Nivôse-Pluviôse an 11, ANOM DPPC, Notariat, Saint-Domingue 485; Inventory of Dominique de la Mota estate, March 22, 1803/Germinal 1 an 11, ANOM DPPC, Notariat, Saint-Domingue 485; Inventory of Pichardo estate, April 4, 1803/Germinal 14 an 11, ANOM DPPC, Notariat, Saint-Domingue 485; Land sale by Joseph Cabiro to Manuel del Moya, May 18, 1803/Floréal 28 an 11, ANOM DPPC, Notariat, Saint-Domingue 485; Inventory of Manuel Almonte estate, June 6, 1803/Prairial 21 an 11, ANOM DPPC, Notariat, Saint-Domingue 485.

8. Notarial records for an 11– an 12 (1803), ANOM DPPC, Notariat, Saint Domingue 485. One of the wills that Derieux notarized referenced a manumission in the past. See the testament of Charles Agustin Gerard, October 28, 1803/Brumaire 5 an 12, ANOM DPPC, Notariat, Saint Domingue 485.

9. Scott, Rebecca Jarvis, Slave Emancipation in Cuba: The Transition to Free Labor, 1860–1899, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985); Holt, Thomas C., The Problem of Freedom: Race, Labor, and Politics in Jamaica and Britain, 1832–1938 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992).

10. Llenas, Alejandro, “Invasión de Toussaint Louverture,” cited in Demorizi, Emilio Rodríguez, Invasiones haitianas: de 1801, 1805 y 1822 (Ciudad Trujillo: Editora del Caribe, 1955), 187.

11. Eller, Anne, We Dream Together: Dominican Independence, Haiti, and the Fight for Caribbean Freedom (Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2016).

12. On anti-Haitian rhetoric in the Trujillo regime, see Pichardo, Franklin Franco, “La ideología de la dictadura de Trujillo,” Iberoamericana 1:3 (2001): 129133.

13. García, José Gabriel, Compendio de la historia de Santo Domingo, 3rd ed. (Santo Domingo: García Hermanos, 1906), 304; Manuel de Jesús Troncoso de la Concha, La ocupación de Santo Domingo por Haiti (Santo Domingo: La Nación, 1942).

14. del Monte, Antonio y Tejada, , Historia de Santo Domingo, vol. 3 (Santo Domingo: García Hermanos, 1892), 171, 173.

15. Franco, Franklin J., Los negros, los mulatos y la nación dominicana, 2nd ed. (Santo Domingo: Editora Nacional, 1970); Michel, Emilio Cordero, La Revolución Haitiana y Santo Domingo (Santo Domingo: Editora Nacional, 1968). See also Carlos Larrazábal Blanco, whose new wave scholarship on Afro-Dominicans also countered Trujillo rhetoric even if did not consider Louverturean emancipation. Blanco, Larrazábal, Los negros y la esclavitud en Santo Domingo (Santo Domingo: Julio Postigo e Hijos, 1967).

16. Quisqueya Lora H., Transición de la esclavitud al trabajo libre en Santo Domingo: el caso de Higüey (Santo Domingo: Academía Dominicana de la Historia, 2012); Eller, We Dream Together; Charlton W Yingling, “Colonialism Unraveling: Race, Religion, and National Belonging in Santo Domingo During the Age of Revolutions” (PhD diss.: University of South Carolina, 2016); Tortosa, Antonio Jesús Pinto, Una colonia en la encrucijada, 1790–1820 (Madrid: Foro para el Estudio de la Historia Militar de España, 2017).

17. For scholarship that presumes that Louverture did emancipate the colony of Santo Domingo, see José Luis Belmonte Postigo, “Bajo el negro velo de la ilegalidad. Un análisis del mercado de esclavos dominicano 1746–1821,” Nuevo Mundo, Mundos Nuevos, 2016,, accessed January 5, 2019; Regino, Francisco Bernardo y Espinal, , “El Tratado de Paz de Basilea, Toussaint Louverture y Napoleón Bonaparte, 1795–1803,” in La era de Francia en Santo Domingo (1795–1808), edición bilingüe Beauregard, Efraín Baldrich, ed. (Santo Domingo: Quinta Dominicana, 2015), 5898; Michel, Emilio Cordero, “Toussaint en Saint-Domingue Espagnol,” in Saint-Domingue espagnol et la révolution nègre d'Haïti. commémoration du bicentenaire de la naissance de l’état d'Haïti (1804–2004), Yacou, Alain, ed. (Paris: Karthala, 2007), 251257; Ferrer, Ada, Freedom's Mirror (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014); Dubois, Laurent, Avengers of the New World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution (Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2004), 238; and Fischer, Sibylle, Modernity Disavowed: Haiti and the Cultures of Slavery in the Age of Revolution (Durham: Duke University Press, 2004).

18. For scholarship arguing that Louverture did not extend emancipation or did not successfully emancipate in Santo Domingo, see Tortosa, Antonio Jesús Pinto, “‘No habrá de sufrirse que los negros abandonen las plantaciones’:Toussaint Louverture ante la esclavitud,” Boletín del Archivo General de La Nación 37:132 (2012), 6389; Girard, Philippe R., “Black Talleyrand: Toussaint Louverture's Diplomacy, 1798–1802,” William and Mary Quarterly 66:1 (2009): 87124; and Nessler, Graham T., An Islandwide Struggle for Freedom: Revolution, Emancipation, and Reenslavement in Hispaniola, 1789–1809 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2016).

19. A second Spanish-speaking notary, Denis de la Rocha, also worked in Santiago's Plaza de Armas during the French period, but his notarial records have not survived.

20. No notarial ledgers from Santo Domingo city survive from before the year 1814. For the earliest notarial records of Santo Domingo city, see José Troncoso, Antonio Abad Solano, Martín de Mueses, and Tomás Bobadilla, Protocolos Notariales, Archivo General de la Nación [hereafter AGN].

21. Scott, Rebecca J., “Paper Thin: Freedom and Re-Enslavement in the Diaspora of the Haitian Revolution,” Law and History Review 29:4 (2011): 10611087.

22. Premo, Bianca, “An Equity against the Law: Slave Rights and Creole Jurisprudence in Spanish America,” Slavery & Abolition 32:4 (2011): 495517; Scott, Rebecca J. and Hébrard, Jean M., Freedom Papers: An Atlantic Odyssey in the Age of Emancipation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012); Dubois, Laurent, A Colony of Citizens: Revolution & Slave Emancipation in the French Caribbean, 1787–1804 (Williamsburg, VA: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, 2004); Nessler, Graham T., “‘They Always Knew Her to Be Free’: Emancipation and Re-Enslavement in French Santo Domingo, 1804–1809,” Slavery & Abolition 33:1 (2012): 87103.

23. Letter from Duque de la Alcudia to Governor President don Joaquín García, September 8, 1795, cited in Documentos para estudio: marco de la época y problemas del Tratado de Basilea de 1795, en la parte española de Santo Domingo, Joaquín Marino Inchaustegui Cabral, ed. (Buenos Aires: Academía Dominicana de la Historia, 1957), 49. On the impact of the Treaty of Basel on east Hispaniola's one major slave rebellion, in the late eighteenth century, see Pinto, Antonio J., “Santo Domingo's Slaves in the Context of the Peace of Basel: Boca Nigua's Black Insurrection, 1796,” Journal of Early American History 3 (2013): 131153. See also Regino y Espinal, “El Tratado de Paz de Basilea.”

24. Popkin, Jeremy D., You Are All Free: The Haitian Revolution and the Abolition of Slavery (New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010); Blackburn, Robin, The Overthrow of Colonial Slavery, 1776–1848 (London and New York: Verso, 1988).

25. Approximately 4,000 inhabitants, including enslaved persons, left for Havana following the Treaty of Basel. Informe of José María de Acebal, April 28, 1814, Archivo Nacional de Cuba: Asuntos Políticos, leg. 15, exp. 19. See also Deive, Carlos Esteban, Las emigraciones dominicanas a Cuba: 1795–1808 (Santo Domingo: Fundación Cultural Dominicana, 1989); Deive, Carlos Esteban, La esclavitud del negro en Santo Domingo, 1492–1844, vol. 2 (Santo Domingo: Museo del Hombre Dominicano, 1980), 246.

26. Emilio Cordero Michel, “Toussaint en Saint-Domingue espagnol,” in Saint-Domingue espagnol et la révolution nègre d'Haïti, Alain Yacou, ed., 251.

27. Popkin, You Are All Free, chapt. 8; Louverture, Memoir, 95. These emancipations did not immediately or universally free Saint Domingue's slaves. As late as 1802, Saint Domingue residents held people in their households whom they considered their personal property. It is unclear whether these would-be owners also continued to exercise other property rights over these bound individuals. Letter from Lecun to Père Luc? [illeg], July 21, 1802, Archivio Storico de Propaganda Fide, Scritture Rif. nei Congressi, America Antille 3 (1790–1819), exp. 343–344.

28. Pierre Pluchon, Toussaint Louverture, fils noir de la révolution française. Bibliothèque documentaire, 9 (Paris: Bibliothèque documentaire de l’école des loisirs, 1980), 49.

29. Semley, Lorelle D., “To Live and Die, Free and French: Toussaint Louverture's 1801 Consitution and the Original Challenge of Black Citizenship,” Radical History Review 115 (Winter 2013): 6590.

30. Napoleon's instructions on Santo Domingo, October 29, 1801, CARAN Colonies CC/9a/28, cited in Nessler, An Islandwide Struggle for Freedom, 133. See also Girard, Philippe R., “Napoléon Bonaparte and the Emancipation Issue in Saint-Domingue, 1799–1803,” French Historical Studies 32:4 (2009): 599.

31. Louverture, Memoir.

32. For Leclerc's circular to Cap Français residents promising to uphold emancipation and Paul Louverture's surrender of Santo Domingo city stipulating the same, see Toussaint Louverture, Memoir, 65, 75.

33. The May 20, 1802/Floréal 30 an 10, decree re-established the institution of slavery in Martinique, St. Lucia, and (in the Indian Ocean) Île de France and La Réunion. These were all colonies where reversing France's 1794 emancipation would be a relatively easy task. Jean-Marcel Champion argues that where expedient and where possible, Napoleon protected and reinstituted slavery. Re-enslavement in Saint Domingue was not thought to be easy enough to merit inclusion in the legislation. Champion, Jean-Marcel, “30 Floréal an X: Le rétablissement de l'esclavage par Bonaparte,” in Abolitions de l'esclavage: de L. F. Sonthonax à Victor Schoelcher, 1793, 1794, 1848: Actes du colloque international tenu à l'Université de Paris VIII les 3, 4, et 5 février 1994, Dorigny, Marcel, ed. (Paris: Presses Universitaires de Vincennes/UNESCO, 1995), 267.

34. Leclerc suggested so in private correspondence in mid 1802: “Ne pensez pas rétablir l'esclavage ici avant quelque temps. Je cois pouvoir tout faire pour que mon successeur n'air plus que l'arrêté du gouvernement à faire exécuter, mais après les proclamations sans nombre que j'ai faites ici pour assurer aux Noirs leurs liberté, je ne veux pas être en contradiction avec moi même, mais assurez le Premier consul que mon successeur trouvera tout disposé.” Leclerc to Admiral Decrès, July 24, 1802/Thermidor 5 an 10, cited in Champion, “30 Floréal an X,” 269.

35. François-Marie-Périchou Kerverseau, Toussaint Louverture d'après le Général de Kerverseau, Pierre Pluchon, ed. (Paris: Editions le Natal, n.d.), 8.

36. Proclamation of François Kerverseau, October 10, 1802, CARAN 135 AP 2, dossier 18, cited in Nessler, An Islandwide Struggle for Freedom, 136. Kerverseau to Merck, commandant of the Department of Cibao, October 22, 1802, CARAN Colonies CC/9b/23, cited in Nessler, An Islandwide Struggle for Freedom, 153.

37. List of baptisms for 1801, Baptisms Book 22 (1798–1802), AHASD Santo Domingo, Santa María de la Encarnación, 136, [hereafter Family Search]. Family Search is an online repository of digitized historical sources provided by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The website hosts digitized sacramental and civil records from local archives across the world. The website's digitized colonial-era records from the Dominican Republic were originally captured on microfilm. On the website, they are organized according to town and parish. The original records remain in local archives in the Dominican Republic.

38. In addition to its position as administrative capital of the colony, the city also sat on a Caribbean port and at the center of several underutilized but functional overland trade routes. By foot or horse, a traveler could reach the cattle regions of the east, Santiago and its neighboring port cities to the north, and the colony of Saint Domingue by the west or the north.

39. On plans for the evacuation of women from the city under British protection, see Correspondencia de D. Joaquín García y Moreno, January 1801, Archivo Nacional de Cuba, Asuntos Políticos, leg. 8, no. 28, cited in Prieto, Gerardo Cabrera, Documentos para la historia colonial de la Republica Dominicana (Santo Domingo: Archivo General de la Nación, 2015), 4245. See also the account of 1,803 political refugees who took flight to Maracaybo after Louverture's entrance, cited in Nessler, An Islandwide Struggle for Freedom, 130. As a point of reference, the city of Santo Domingo had over 25,000 residents, 20 years earlier. Valverde, Antonio Sánchez, Idea del valor de la isla española y utilidades, que de ella puede sacar su monarquia (Santo Domingo [Ciudad Trujillo]: Editora Montalvo, 1947), 147.

40. Interruptions in ecclesiastical recordkeeping in the capital city region correspond exactly with the period of direct Napoleonic rule in the colony and the nationalization of the Catholic Church's property under Napoleon's ministers. On the daily practice of religion under Leclerc, see Debrien, Gabriel, Guillaume Mauviel, évêque constitutionnel de Saint-Domingue, 1801–1805) (Basse-Terre, Guadeloupe: Société d'histoire de la Guadeloupe, 1981).

41. See Representación elevada a SM por el prelado y religiosos del Convento de Predicadores, September 29, 1802, AGI, Estado, Santo Domingo, 11, cited in Inchaustegui Cabral, Documentos para estudio: marco de la época, 433–442.

42. Burial of Francisco, October 7, 1801, AHASD, Santo Domingo, Santa María de la Encarnación Burial Book 8 (1798–1802); Burial of Juan, January 11, 1802, AHASD, Santo Domingo, Santa María de la Encarnación Burial Book 8 (1798–1802), Family Search.

43. Larrazábal Blanco, Los negros y la esclavitud en Santo Domingo, 153–154.

44. San Cristóbal Parish Records, Libro de Bautismos 1 y 2, 1784–1816: Baptism of Narciso, 90; Baptism of Domingo, 91; Baptism of María Dolores; Baptism of Casimiro; Baptism of Aniano, (June 10, 1803), Family Search.

45. Baptism of Bernardo, May 5, 1803, Peravía: Bani: Nuestra Señora de Regla parish records, Libro de Bautismos 1A 1795–1812, 21b, Family Search.

46. Carte routière de l‘île de Saint-Domingue, 1780, Bibliothèque nationale de France, Dépôt de la Marine [Service hydrographique de la marine consacrée à Saint Domingue], portfolio 146 division 1, 27/1; La Española, 1790, Archivo General de Indias, Mapas y Planos, 552; P. L. Griwtonn, Carte de l'ile de Saint-Domingue avec les routes, 1801, Bibliothèque nationale de France, département, Cartes et plans, GE C-9249.

47. See Sánchez Valverde, Idea del valor de la isla española, 150; and Pons, Frank Moya, “Haiti and Santo Domingo, 1790–c. 1870,” in Cambridge History of Latin America, vol. 3, Bethell, Leslie, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 257.

48. Despite their isolation, these towns certainly felt the colony's incorporation into France. Surviving Spanish-language notarial records produced between 1802 and 1809 were marked with either the handwritten words, Livertad, Ygualdad, Republica Francesa” or a stamp of the République Français. For changes in notarial documentation, see the testament of Juan Portalatín Sorrillas, October 10, 1802, AGN, Archivo Real de El Seibo [hereafter ARS], leg. 1700064, exp. 121; and Donación hecha por Manuel Mejía a Lucía Suárez, January 3, 1803, AGN, Archivo Real de Bayaguana [hereafter ARB], leg. 1700040, exp. 45.

49. Marriage of Antonio Guerrero, esclavo, and María de Vivas, February 24, 1801, Monte Plata, Bayaguana, San Juan Bautista parish records, Matrimonios 1797–1899, 9, Family Search.

50. On the law of the enslaved mother's womb in written records, and on the limits of manumission at the baptismal font, see McKinley, Michelle A., Fractional Freedoms: Slavery, Intimacy, and Legal Mobilization in Colonial Lima, 1600–1700 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2016).

51. Baptism of Siprian, October 21, 1801, El Seibo, Santa Cruz Parish, Baptisms Book 3 (January 26, 1802, to January 19, 1813), 235; Baptism of Manuela, October 10 1801, El Seibo, Santa Cruz Parish: Baptisms Book 3 (January 26, 1802, to January 19, 1813), Family Search. The Santa Cruz parish priest Ygnacio Morillas baptized approximately 75 people, all infants, in 1801.

52. Baptism of Lianara, March 28, 1802, El Seibo, Santa Cruz Parish, Baptisms Book 3 (January 26, 1802 to January, 19, 1813), 245, Family Search.

53. See for example Baptism of Juliana, February 16, 1803, El Seibo, Santa Cruz Parish, Baptisms Book 3 (January 26, 1802 to January, 19, 1813), 11, Family Search.

54. Sale of Julián by Gabriela Nicacio to Nicolás Ortiz, March 14, 1801, AGN, ARB, leg. 1700035, exp. 25.

55. Testament of George Herrera, municipal official, September 12, 1802, AGN, ARS, leg. 1700064, exp. 118.

56. Testament of María García, October 18, 1802, AGN, ARS, leg. 1700064, exp. 117.

57. Sorrillas's will did not mention the child Lianara, so her fate is unknown. Testament of Juan Portalatín Sorrillas, October 10, 1802, AGN, ARS, leg. 1700064, exp. 121.

58. See for example the gift of a filly and a heifer by Juan Marcos Peguero “al negrito Jose mi esclavo.” Testament of Juan Marcos Peguero, December 13, 1803, AGN, ARB, leg. 1700040, exp. 58.

59. Baptism of Pedro, May 9, 1801, AHASD, Santo Domingo, Santa María de la Encarnación Baptisms Book 22 (1798–1802), 144, Family Search.

60. Because baptismal font manumissions involved children who were dependents of enslaved mothers, they often did not result in actual freedom. On the contested legal ground of these manumissions, see McKinley, Fractional Freedoms.

61. de la Fuente, Alejandro, “Slaves and the Creation of Legal Rights in Cuba: Coartacion and Papel,” Hispanic American Historical Review 87:4 (2007): 659692.

62. Among more than 150 extant records of slave sales officiated by French-speaking notaries in eastern Hispaniola spanning the years 1803–1808, only one enslaved person claimed the right to coartación, and the notary specifically identified her as a Spanish-speaking creole slave. See ANOM, DPPC NOT SDOM, 121, 133, 134, 699, 702, 703, 704, 705, 706, 707, 735, 1697, 1698, 1699, 1700, and 1701.

63. Baptism of Francisco, May 20, 1801, AHASD, Santo Domingo, Santa María de la Encarnación Baptisms Book 22 (1798–1802), 146; Baptism of Maria Nicolasa, September 12, 1801, AHASD, Santo Domingo, Santa María de la Encarnación Baptisms Book 22 (1798–1802), 147, Family Search.

64. One of the adult slave baptisms in 1801 was probably occasioned not by any slave trade, but by the recent immigration of a slave owner. Francisco's owner was “French,” likely from Saint Domingue. His owner could have been a recent immigrant.

65. A year later in 1803, El Seibo's justice of the peace notarized six slave sales and one self-purchase. Testament of George Herrera, municipal official, September 12, 1802, AGN, ARS, leg 1700064, exp. 118; Testament of Juan Portalatín Sorrilla, October 10, 1802, AGN, ARS, leg 1700064, exp. 121; Testament of María García, October 18, 1802, AGN, ARS, leg 1700064, exp. 117. In addition, see Index of notarial acts, 1803, AGN, ARS, leg. 1700082, exp. 162; and Self-purchase of Juan López from Juan Rodríguez, April 6, 1803, AGN, ARS, leg. 1700064, exp. 114.

66. No notarial data for the town of Bayaguana survives from the year 1802.

67. Marriage of Andres Rosario and Dominga Mexia, May 18, 1801, Monte Plata: Bayaguana: San Juan Bautista, Matrimonios 1797–1899, 10; Marriage of Juan Peguero and Ysidora Geraldo, May 23, 1801, Monte Plata, Bayaguana, San Juan Bautista, Matrimonios 1797–1899, 10, Family Search. The word esclavo also appears in the margin of Peguero/Geraldo's entry. I suspect this margin note was a later addition, but if it is a contemporary note, it would suggest that the parish priest found Louverturean emancipation confusing or that he, like many other persons invested in the institution of slavery, was content to blur the exact meaning of what an esclavo was.

68. 1802–1803, Monte Plata: Bayaguana: San Juan Bautista Parish Records, Libro de Matrimonios 1797–1899, 10–13. Accessed on Family Search. See also multiple examples of slave sales found in Index of Notarial Acts, April 8, 1803, AGN, ARS, leg. 1700082, exp. 162.

69. For example, in April 1803, a Juan López appeared before the notary Sogreras in an act of manumission, purchasing his freedom from his owner Juan Rodríguez. Sogreras referred to the freed López first as Juan Rodríguez's esclavo and later, as Rodríguez's cultivador. Self-purchase of Juan López from Juan Rodríguez, April 6, 1803, AGN, ARS, leg. 1700064, exp. 114.

70. Baptism registries usually recorded the infants’ parentage, their legitimate or illegitimate status, and the free or enslaved status of their parents. Baptism of Narciso, May 31, 1803, San Cristóbal Parish Records, Libro de Bautismos 1 y 2, 1784–1816, Family Search.

71. In the sixteenth century, the town had produced sugar, as did towns in the south and north of eastern Hispaniola. By the end of the nineteenth century, Higüey had only 500 inhabitants, and produced mostly cattle. Sánchez Valverde, Idea del valor, 104, 150.

72. Higüey's town council records are missing for the years 1801 through 1810.

73. The town's local archives contain complementary records of newborns. These are the parish's baptism register, which ran from the colonial period until mid 1802 and began again in 1813, and a French- and Spanish-language secular register produced by the notary Fernando Oliver and other municipal officers between 1801 and 1806.

74. Birth of Marie Lucrece [Martina], July 18, 1802/ Messidor 29 an 10, AGN, Archivo Real de Higüey [hereafter ARH], leg. 1700130, Exp 2/31.

75. Fernando Oliver, Birth register, 1801–1802, AGN, ARH, leg. 1700130, Exp 2. For the esclavos in Higüey's baptismal registry in 1800, see the following baptismal records, all from La Altagracia: Salvaleón de Higüey, San Dionisio de Higüey Baptisms Book 2 (1785–1828), and all found at Family Search: Juan Antonio, February 11, 1800, 117; Josef de Leon, April 26, 1800, 121; Josef Congo, October 16, 1800, 127; Secundo, July 14, 1801, 133; Josefa, October 3, 1801, 135; Patricia, March 28, 1802, 145; Juan, April 12, 1802, 145; Josef Pablo, June 7, 1802, 147; Maria Lucresia, July 18, 1802, 150.

76. Birth of Patricia Columna, March 28, 1802/Germinal 7 an 11, AGN, ARH, leg. 1700130, exp. 2/21.

77. Baptism of Patricia, March 28, 1802, La Altagracia, Salvaleón de Higüey, San Dionisio de Higüey Baptisms Book 2 (1785–1828), 145, Family Search.

78. In Higüey's secular birth register, “cultivator” never stood on its own as a description of occupation. It was always a mark of attachment to another person, even when cultivators other than the newborn or new parents appeared in the record. See for example the registration of his godchild made when the cultivator Santiago Yrizarri registered the birth: “The cultivator Santiago Yrizarri, belonging to the citizen Jose Villaviencio … declared that fifteen days earlier was born a cultivator, legitimate daughter of the cultivators Jose Columna and Petronila his legitimate spouse, belonging to the citizen Matheo Sánchez.” Birth of Petrona Alcantaria Irisarri, November 2, 1802/Brumaire 11 an 11, AGN, ARH, leg. 1700130, exp. 2/40.

79. Race and racial identification conferred status in the colonial Americas. Both Ramírez and Oliver identified unfree laborers using racial terms, as did notaries and priests elsewhere in eastern Hispaniola. The racial terms in their records maintained pre-emancipation racial differences and lent stability to new terminology and new systems of unfree labor.

80. Birth of Petrona Alcantaria Irisarri, November 2, 1802/Brumaire 11 an 1, AGN, ARH, leg. 1700130, exp. 2/40; Birth of Tomasina Sedano, March 20, 1803/Ventôse 29 an 11, AGN, ARH, leg. 1700130, exp. 2/60. Neither Petrona nor Tomasina had redundant birth records in the ecclesiastical record.

81. Birth of Paula Yrisarri, March 4, 1804/Ventôse 13 an 12, AGN, ARH, leg. 1700130, exp. 2/100.

82. See a letter from Ferrand to the commandant of Higüey in February 1804 concerning the re-enslavement of shipwrecked blacks from Puerto Rico, cited in Nessler, An Islandwide Struggle for Freedom, 165.

83. See the deliberate use of the vague term domestique by a would-be slave owner to protect her murky legal claim over enslaved people. Jones, Martha S., “Time, Space, and Jurisdiction in Atlantic World Slavery: The Volunbrun Household in Gradual Emancipation New York,” Law and History Review 29:4 (2011): 1056.

84. Literature on post-emancipation labor in Latin America and the Caribbean emphasizes continuities after emancipation, as the features that made apprentices’ labor “free” were often more advantageous to former slave owners than to the formerly enslaved. Holt, The Problem of Freedom. Race, Labor, and Politics; Cooper, Frederick, Holt, Thomas C., and Scott, Rebecca J., eds., Beyond Slavery: Explorations of Race, Labor, and Citizenship in Postemancipation Societies (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2000); Scott, Slave Emancipation in Cuba; Scott, Rebecca J., Degrees of Freedom: Louisiana and Cuba after Slavery (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009); Flory, Céline, De l'esclavage à la liberté forcée: histoire des travailleurs africains engagés dans la caraïbe française au XIXe siecle (Paris: Éditions Karthala, 2015); Tyson, George F., “‘Our Side’: Caribbean Immigrant Labourers and the Transition to Free Labour on St. Croix, 1849–79,” in Small Islands, Large Question:. Society, Culture and Resistance in the Post-Emancipation Caribbean, Olwig, Karen Fog, ed. (London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 1995), 135160; Andrews, George Reid, “Black and White Workers: São Paulo, Brazil, 1888–1938,” in The Abolition of Slavery and the Aftermath of Emancipation in Brazil, Scott, Rebecca Jarvis, ed. (Durham: Duke University Press, n.d.), 85118; Figueroa, Luis Antonio, Sugar, Slavery, and Freedom in Nineteenth-Century Puerto Rico (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005); Blanchard, Peter, Under the Flags of Freedom: Slave Soldiers and the Wars of Independence in Spanish South America (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2008).

85. Contract between Tejada and Otero, May 19, 1803/Floréal 29 an 11, ANOM DPPC, Notariat, Saint-Domingue 485.

86. Nazzari, Muriel, “Transition toward Slavery: Changing Legal Practice Regarding Indians in Seventeenth- Century São Paulo,” The Americas 49:2 (1992): 131155; Monteiro, John M., “From Indian to Slave: Forced Native Labour and Colonial Society in São Paulo During the Seventeenth Century,” Slavery & Abolition 9:2 (1988): 105127.

87. Proclamation of Toussaint to all of the inhabitants of the former Spanish part of the island, February 8, 1801, CARAN Colonies CC/9b/18, cited in Nessler, An Islandwide Struggle for Freedom, 231.

88. For a discussion of the word used for estate, glèbe, in Leclerc's agricultural law, see Johnhenry Gonzalez, “The War on Sugar: Forced Labor, Commodity Production, and the Origins of the Haitian Peasantry, 1791–1843” (PhD diss.: University of Chicago, 2012), 64.

89. See for example Arrêté sur les journées de travail, March 13, 1795/ventôse 23 an III, ANOM/C 7A, 48, 8, cited in Dubois, A Colony of Citizens: Revolution & Slave Emancipation in the French Caribbean, 1787–1804, 210. Dubois has identified one testament from post-emancipation Guadeloupe in which a former slave owner attempted to bequeath emancipated cultivators under the conditions of formal, enforced emancipation. The 1796 emancipation of Guadeloupe received state and military support, unlike emancipation in Santiago in 1803. Testament of Bourgade, November 4, 1796/Brumaire 14 an 5, ADG, Serane eE2/158, cited in Dubois, A Colony of Citizens, 218.

90. “Attachment” also defined the unfree state of Russian serfs. Russia's early modern system of serfdom grew out of restrictions on free movement. This characteristic persisted into the nineteenth century and required serfs to request, and sometimes pay for, movement passes. Serfs who owed monetary dues to their landlords could expect more seigniorial support for their movement, especially as they traveled in and out of towns to sell artisanal products. In contrast, Atlantic slaveholders, especially in urban spheres, might permit their slaves a great deal of free movement. Unlike a Russian landholder's rights over a serf, a slaveholder's right to enslaved property was not undergirded by land access or the government's interest in harvests, both of which presumed a serf's stable geography. The slaveholder's right was a right to their enslaved property's labor and progeny. Bush, M. L., ed., Serfdom and Slavery: Studies in Legal Bondage (London and New York: Longman, 1996); Moon, David, Abolition of Serfdom in Russia, 1762–1907 (Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited, 2001); Kolchin, Peter, Unfree Labor: American Slavery and Russian Serfdom (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990).

91. Garrigus, John D., Before Haiti: Race and Citizenship in French Saint-Domingue (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006), 33.

92. Mémoire et lettre du conseil de marine, au sujet du droit d'aubaine et de la nature mobilière des esclaves, et ordonnances des administrateurs sur le même sujet des 20 octobre 1717 et 6 avril 1718, cited in de Saint-Méry, M. L. E. Moreau, Loix et constitutions des colonies françoises de l'Amérique sous le vent, vol. 2 (Paris: Quillau, 1784); Palmer, Jennifer L., Intimate Bonds: Family and Slavery in the French Atlantic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016), 215.

93. For the paper trail left by commerce across the coast, see Succession de Marie Bolte, habitante de Monte-Christ, February 14, 1803/Pluviôse 25 an 11, Affiches Américaines de Saint Domingue, no. 16; Déclaration de départ de M. Luis Herna, habitant de Sant-Yago, June 29, 1803/Messidor 10 an 11, Affiches Américaines de Saint Domingue, No. 52, BNF Gallica.

94. Nessler, An Islandwide Struggle for Freedom, 146.

95. Archives Nationales (France), Colonies, CC 9 a 40, cahier 3, February 12, 1804 Pluviôse 22 an 12, cited in Picó, Fernando, One Frenchman, Four Revolutions: General Ferrand and the Peoples of the Caribbean (Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener Publishers, 2011); de Arredondo, Gaspar y Pichardo, , “Historia de mi salida de la Isla de Santo Domingo el 28 de abril de 1805,” Revista Clío 82 (1948), chapt. 8.

96. Franco, Los negros, los mulatos y la nación dominicana.

97. A 1798 law threatened imprisonment and remedial work for any “vagabond” found without work in Saint Domingue colony. See the 1798 Arrêté concernant la police des habitations et les obligations réciproques des propriétaires, ou fermiers, et des cultivateurs, cited in Mackenzie, Charles, Notes on Haiti, Made during a Residence in That Republic, Volume II (London: Henry Colburn and Richard Bentley, 1830), Appendix CC, 290.

98. Lora Hugi, Transición de la esclavitud al trabajo libre en Santo Domingo. See also chapter 5 of Maria Cecilia Ulrickson, “Esclavos que fueron in Santo Domingo, 1768–1844” (PhD diss.: University of Notre Dame, 2018).