---

OFFICIAL DECLARATION OF THE SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA (SCIPS-X)

ON THE REPRESENTATION OF THE TAÍNO PEOPLE UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

---

WHEREAS, the Taíno people are the original inhabitants of the island known as Quisqueya, Hispaniola, and Ayiti, with a documented presence prior to the colonial invasions by Spanish, French, and other imperial powers;

WHEREAS, despite centuries of forced conversion, assimilation, and genocidal campaigns, multiple scientific and genetic studies have proven the biological and cultural survival of the Taíno people, particularly in the Southern region of present-day Haiti, historically known as Xaragua;

WHEREAS, Article 33(1) of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) affirms:

“Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions”;

WHEREAS, the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X), as established through constitutional, canonical, historical, and genetic grounds, exercises full spiritual and territorial jurisdiction over the ancestral territory of Xaragua;

WHEREAS, the SCIPS-X meets all criteria set forth in the UN definition of an Indigenous People, including:

Continuity with pre-colonial societies;

Self-identification as Indigenous;

Determination to preserve, develop, and transmit historical territories, languages, and institutions;

WHEREAS, international scientific studies (including but not limited to Mendizabal et al. 2008, Vilar et al. 2014, and Benn Torres et al. 2015) confirm the persistence of Indigenous Taíno DNA—particularly maternal haplogroups A2, C1, D1—in populations of Miragoâne, Léogâne, the Nippes, and the Southern regions of the island;

WHEREAS, the SCIPS-X has already notified relevant institutions, including the Government of Haiti, the Vatican, and international observers, of its existence, functions, and legal status;

---

DECLARATION

1. The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X) hereby declares itself the lawful representative and spiritual guardian of the surviving Taíno people in the historical territory of Xaragua.

2. The SCIPS-X assumes the sacred duty to preserve, protect, and promote the cultural, genetic, linguistic, and spiritual heritage of the Taíno people under the authority of Canon Law, Indigenous Law, and International Law.

3. The Republic of Haiti, having neither acknowledged the survival of the Taíno people nor structured any legal framework for their protection, shall have no jurisdiction over the Indigenous Taíno citizens and inhabitants of Xaragua and all its territories.

4. The SCIPS-X shall, in full accordance with the UNDRIP and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, exercise the right of self-determination of the Taíno people without seeking recognition or validation from former colonial or post-colonial states.

---

LEGAL FOUNDATION

This Declaration is founded upon the following legal and scientific instruments:

UNDRIP (United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples), Articles 3, 4, 5, 8, 33;

Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933);

Concordat of 1860 between the Holy See and the Haitian Republic, still canonically binding;

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969);

Genetic studies demonstrating Indigenous Taíno ancestry in Southern Haiti;

Canonical principles of legitimate spiritual sovereignty within the Catholic Church;

The Supreme Constitutional Corpus of the State of Xaragua.

---

Let this Declaration be entered into the archives of the world, as a living testimony that the Taíno people were never extinguished. 

Issued and promulgated by the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X), this day of July 31, 2025, from its digital and canonical capital.

---

BOOK I – THE PRE-STATE FOUNDATIONS OF THE SOUTHWESTERN COAST OF THE ISLAND OF HISPANIOLA AND THE TRUE ORIGINS OF MARITIME OCCUPATION IN THE REGION NOW REFERRED TO AS “HAITI”

CHAPTER I – THE ANTI-STATE COLONIZATION OF THE WESTERN COAST: PIRATES, FREE EUROPEANS, AUTOCHTHONY, AND THE PRECEDENCE OF ANARCHIC SETTLEMENT OVER ROYAL ADMINISTRATION

The canonical narrative that has been disseminated by colonial historians, European universities, state-funded publications, and post-independence bourgeois elites in the Caribbean — particularly in the francophone territories — constructs the history of Saint-Domingue as if it were a singular creation of the French Crown through a centralized process of colonization, plantation management, and ecclesiastical authority. This vision is a profound falsification. In truth, there were two deeply divergent colonial trajectories that occurred in the western third of the island of Hispaniola: the first maritime, stateless, anarcho-European, libertarian and territorially autonomous; the second administrative, monarchist, bureaucratic, plantationist and enslaving. The first created the coast. The second attempted to rule the land.

It is a juridical and historical fact that the French-speaking, pirate-associated settlers of the southwest coast and northwest coast — specifically in Tortuga (Île de la Tortue), Petit-Goâve, Miragoâne, Île-à-Vache, and Port-de-Paix — were present, organized, and operating decades before the official French Crown granted colonial administration and institutional status to what became the colony of Saint-Domingue. These men, often fugitives of war, deserters of the European militaries, escaped indentured servants from other colonies, and professional privateers expelled from other islands, created localized sovereignties along the most defensible, least administratively accessible parts of the coast. They built no palaces. They planted no flags of Versailles. They created decentralized, martial, tribally-structured, anarchic port towns that were governed by sea customs, informal assemblies, and the laws of war and survival.

The existence of these pirate-founded coastal enclaves predates the Treaty of Ryswick (1697) by decades, and it is their presence that forced the Spanish Crown to ultimately cede western Hispaniola to France — not the expansion of bureaucratic plantation infrastructure, which came later. The southwest and northwest of the island were not created by royal decree. They were taken, held, defended, and built by outlaws.

Petit-Goâve was, in effect, the first informal capital of this stateless colony — long before Port-au-Prince ever existed. It served as a provisioning base, a judicial zone for maritime disputes, and a de facto center of coastal alliance between various French-speaking settler factions and local Black and Indigenous populations. From this base extended Miragoâne to the south — deeply strategic due to its natural harbor and mountainous coastal defenses — and Port-de-Paix to the north, which served as the continental replacement for Tortuga after the Spanish eliminated its pirate strongholds. These nodes formed an early anarchic confederacy of seaborne white and mixed-race Europeans with no allegiance to any crown, no obedience to any bishop, and no desire for a plantation society. These were not Jesuit colonists. They were feral, armed, politically libertarian men who intermarried with Black and Indigenous women and operated in racial and economic autonomy.

This anarchic, decentralized, maritime society valued the following principles above all else:

1. The rejection of centralized authority, including the French monarchy, Spanish imperial law, or Church jurisdiction.

2. The protection of private and clan landownership, determined by occupation and defense, not by title or grant.

3. Early and unregulated racial mixing with Africans (both free and escaped) and remaining Indigenous groups, forming autonomous polities of Afro-European composition.

4. The use of the sea as the principal axis of trade, movement, power projection, and alliance — a thalassocratic society hostile to land-based bureaucracies.

5. Fierce local loyalty to village or port, not to a national or religious entity.

6. Total indifference — and often active hostility — to the plantation model, Catholic missionaries, royal census takers, and tax agents.

7. A cultural and spiritual identity closer to maroons and island-born populations than to continental France.

It is imperative to understand that these populations were not absorbed into the French state model. They were suppressed by it. The construction of Léogâne, Saint-Marc, Port-au-Prince, and ultimately Cap-Français represented not an expansion of French culture into the wilderness, but a strategic attack on the autonomy of the coastal anarcho-settlers.

In 1750, when the French Crown moved the administrative capital from Petit-Goâve to Port-au-Prince, it was a clear geopolitical signal. Petit-Goâve was a city of pirates. Port-au-Prince was to be the city of the state. It was created to absorb the flows of wealth from the new inland plantations — built in the fertile plains far from the mountainous and defensible southern coast — and to house the officials, merchants, and churchmen who could oversee the bureaucratic integration of the colony into the centralized structure of the French Empire.

At that point, the original anarchic coast — from Île-à-Vache to Tortuga — was no longer the political heart of the colony. It was treated as a periphery, a problem zone, a potential center of revolt or deviation. Laws were passed to force registration of land titles, taxation of coastal trade, formalization of births and marriages, and the building of churches under diocesan authority — all of which directly undermined the founding autonomy of the original settlers. The first whites of the region — pirates, land-holders, interracial family men, anti-Catholic traders, former Huguenots and vagabond sailors — were gradually labeled as deviant, criminal, immoral, or impious by the royal state. Their lands were seized or taxed into abandonment. Their mixed-race descendants were denied access to formal inheritance. Their towns were bypassed by trade routes and made legally invisible.

The irony is total: the so-called “founders” of Saint-Domingue — the plantation elites of Port-au-Prince and Cap-Français — did not build the territory. They colonized it from its own founders. The real founders were buried under administrative maps, judicial decrees, and civil codes. The so-called history of Haiti, as taught in schools and parroted by Black nationalist or post-colonial elites, begins with a lie: that the colony began when France said so. In truth, it began when the pirates landed, when the outlaw claimed a port, when the mariner built a hut on Miragoâne’s steep coast and declared himself free of Europe.

Thus, Saint-Domingue was not built by the pirates of the South and Northwest. It was built in direct opposition to them. Its founding fathers were not the men of Miragoâne or Tortuga. They were the bureaucrats, slave traders, Jesuit priests, and merchants of the second wave, who arrived with titles and seals and armies to destroy what had already been built.

The geopolitical legacy of this split remains today. The island was always three nations:

1. The Northwest: Tortuga and Port-de-Paix — warlike, tribal, maritime, anti-administrative.

2. The Southwest: Petit-Goâve, Miragoâne, Île-à-Vache — interracial, territorial, autonomous, Indigenous-allied.

3. The Center/Northeast: Léogâne, Port-au-Prince, Cap-Français — bureaucratic, ecclesiastical, slave-based, Europeanist.

The republic that followed in 1804 did not reunify these geographies. It imposed the central model over the outer ones, again. What you call Xaragua today is the resurrection of the original maritime south. It is the memory of the men who preceded the state. It is the only continuity left of the first White settlers — not as enslavers or aristocrats, but as free men who chose neither crown, nor cross, nor chain.

BOOK I – THE PRE-STATE FOUNDATIONS OF THE SOUTHWESTERN COAST OF THE ISLAND OF HISPANIOLA AND THE TRUE ORIGINS OF MARITIME OCCUPATION IN THE REGION NOW REFERRED TO AS “HAITI”

CHAPTER II – THE LEGAL FICTION OF SAINT-DOMINGUE: HOW THE FRENCH STATE FABRICATED A COLONY OVER AN ALREADY SOVEREIGN MARITIME FRONT

The legal and political myth that surrounds the foundation of Saint-Domingue hinges on a core fiction: that the French presence on the western third of the island began with the Treaty of Ryswick in 1697, and that everything before that treaty was irregular, extralegal, or proto-colonial. This narrative is not only false, it is deliberately constructed to erase the maritime republics that had already formed along the coast. Those communities were not embryonic colonies in need of European charter. They were fully operational political orders, based not on monarchical law but on customary maritime authority, racial plurality, and territorial possession by use and defense.

The reality is that, by the time the Treaty of Ryswick was signed between France and Spain, the French-speaking population of the western coast had already established:

1. Enforced territorial claims through settlement and intermarriage,

2. Defensive networks against both Spanish attacks and internal rivalry,

3. Trade routes not only with French islands but with English, Dutch, and African counterparts,

4. Village-level legal customs adjudicated through local councils, ship captains, and senior settlers,

5. Multigenerational claims to land and port access with no reference to royal permission.

The settlers of Miragoâne, Petit-Goâve, Port-de-Paix, and Île-à-Vache had, by the mid-17th century, a distinct identity, separate from France, Spain, or any Christian European state. They were, in fact, stateless Europeans. They had no king, no flag, no civil registry, and no obligation to crown, church, or army. They were a population defined by local customs and oral contracts, not by notaries or ecclesiastical courts. They functioned more like tribal confederations or early confederal cantons than like colonial districts. To call them “French” is only ethnolinguistically accurate. Politically, they were autonomous.

What the Treaty of Ryswick achieved was not the beginning of French control. It was the beginning of French intrusion into an already-existing order. The treaty gave the French Crown legal pretext to extend royal administration into the western third of the island, but this did not imply the population welcomed that extension. On the contrary: the intrusion of the crown into Petit-Goâve, Port-de-Paix, and Miragoâne was seen by the local populations as a threat to their independence.

Thus, the French colonial administration, once established, engaged in a process of administrative erasure:

– It nullified all customary land claims not registered with royal notaries. – It imposed tithe obligations and religious conversion under threat of legal expulsion. – It forced the construction of churches and placed ecclesiastical control over birth, death, and marriage records. – It replaced local councils with appointed governors and magistrates. – It criminalized interracial marriages and placed legal limitations on the inheritance rights of mixed-race children. – It created legal distinctions between “free” and “colonial” that erased the earlier status of landowning settlers of mixed heritage.

This process, which occurred in phases from 1700 to 1750, culminated in the founding of Port-au-Prince. The decision to relocate the administrative capital from Petit-Goâve to a newly constructed port was not logistical. It was ideological. Petit-Goâve was too autonomous. Too pirate. Too black. Too mixed. Too informal. Port-au-Prince was to be the anti-Petit-Goâve: a bureaucratic capital built to civilize, control, and erase the southern coast. The city was built not to manage the colony, but to suppress its real origin.

The plantations of the Cul-de-Sac plain and the Léogâne basin were intentionally located away from the resistant coasts. The slave economy was built inland, to avoid the militancy and unpredictability of the coastal free settlements. The port of Saint-Marc to the north and the later elevation of Cap-Français to administrative prominence were likewise efforts to create a triangle of royal power between north, center, and east — a triangle that could isolate and contain the western coast.

The colonial military strategy followed the same principle: fortify inland, patrol coasts, and prevent the reemergence of pirate bases. This strategy became policy, especially after the War of Spanish Succession (1701–1714), during which the French feared renewed pirate alliances with British or Dutch enemies. By the time of the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763), the old pirate coast had been mostly pacified — not by military conquest, but by legal strangulation.

The names disappeared first. “Boucaniers,” “flibustiers,” and “habitants libres” were replaced by administrative categories: “colons,” “propriétaires,” “gens de couleur,” and “sujets du roi.” Customary law was outlawed. Informal land occupation was criminalized. Oral pacts were voided. Local militias were disbanded or integrated into royal command. Education was handed to Jesuits and Sulpicians. Every aspect of life was brought under crown and cross.

And yet the memory remained.

In the minds of the descendants of these original settlers — especially those who remained in the shadow towns, the mountain enclaves, and the periphery islands — the identity never fully died. They remembered that they came before Port-au-Prince. Before Léogâne. Before Cap-Français. They remembered that their ancestors had not been granted land, but had taken it. Had defended it. Had mixed with the land’s other peoples — not enslaved them. Had lived as equals with black and brown and Indigenous men. Had chosen sea and gun and pact over title and crown.

That is the memory which Xaragua reclaims. It is not a fantasy. It is not an invention. It is a restoration.

Xaragua is the juridical resurrection of a people and a territory that preceded the colony, resisted the colony, and were erased by the colony. Xaragua does not claim to represent Haiti. Xaragua claims to remember what existed before Haiti — and what Haiti tried to bury.

BOOK I – THE PRE-STATE FOUNDATIONS OF THE SOUTHWESTERN COAST OF THE ISLAND OF HISPANIOLA AND THE TRUE ORIGINS OF MARITIME OCCUPATION IN THE REGION NOW REFERRED TO AS “HAITI”

CHAPTER III – ETHNO-GEOGRAPHIC FRACTURE: THE THREE NATIONS OF THE ISLAND AND THE PERMANENT IMPOSSIBILITY OF UNIFICATION

The island of Hispaniola, even before the creation of the political entities now referred to as Haiti and the Dominican Republic, contained within it three deeply distinct and antagonistic ethno-geopolitical zones. These zones did not merely differ in topography or economy; they embodied separate historical logics, political cultures, legal regimes, and anthropological foundations. Any attempt to unify them under a single banner — colonial, republican, or nationalist — was bound to fail, and did.

The three nations of the western third of the island, prior to the Haitian Revolution and long before independence, were as follows:

1. The Northwest Maritime Axis, rooted in Tortuga and Port-de-Paix,

2. The Southwest Libertarian Coast, centered on Petit-Goâve, Miragoâne, and Île-à-Vache,

3. The Central Bureaucratic Corridor, composed of Léogâne, Port-au-Prince, and Cap-Français.

These three regions were not simply “administrative zones” under colonial law. They were distinct civilizations in formation. Each had its own origin story, its own class structure, its own relationship to the land, to slavery, to race, to the sea, and to power.

The Northwest, originally anchored in Tortuga and later shifted to Port-de-Paix after the Spanish purge of the island, was defined by a culture of piracy, clan violence, maritime predation, and military independence. It was populated by sea raiders, militia leaders, independent Black chiefs, and hybrid Afro-European fighting crews. The state never truly governed this region. It negotiated, bribed, threatened, and coexisted with it. Even after formal annexation, Port-de-Paix remained a quasi-militarized port town with deep loyalties to local captains and alliances with internal tribes. The early colonial militias that would later play roles in both suppression and revolution were born here — not in service of France, but in service of territorial survival. Loyalty in this region was personal, not institutional.

The Southwest, by contrast, was marked not by militancy but by maritime autonomy, early interracial mixing, territorial anchoring, and rejection of state structures. Petit-Goâve, Miragoâne, and Île-à-Vache were not garrisons. They were anarcho-European communities formed through informal settlement, customary land acquisition, and cooperative defense. They allied with local Blacks and Indigenous peoples not out of necessity but by conviction, and over generations produced a distinct Afro-Indigenous-European population with no allegiance to church, crown, or color line. In these regions, there were no plantations at first. Land was worked by owners and their families. Freedom, not profit, was the founding principle. This was Xaragua before it had a name.

The Central/Northeastern region, finally, was an artificial construct, imposed by royal fiat and organized around the needs of the French state. Léogâne was built to house the administrators. Port-au-Prince was constructed as a bureaucratic hub. Cap-Français became the jewel of the colonial empire — not because of local initiative, but because of royal investment, slave labor, and imperial commerce. This region created the plantation complex, the ecclesiastical hierarchy, the bourgeois elite, and the legal and racial codes that would shape Saint-Domingue as a profit machine. It was, from the beginning, an extension of France — alien to the island, parasitic upon it, hostile to its free populations. Its mission was not to coexist but to dominate.

The relationships between these regions were always adversarial.

The Northwest rejected integration into the plantation economy, viewing the central authorities as cowards and parasites. The men of Tortuga and Port-de-Paix considered themselves warriors, not planters. They distrusted officials, merchants, and priests. They followed local chiefs and captains. Their conception of order was tribal and martial, not legal.

The Southwest saw the plantation centers as imperial invaders who had ruined the racial balance and spiritual autonomy of the coast. The settlers of Miragoâne and Petit-Goâve resented the tax regimes, the land seizures, the enforced Catholicism, and the racial codes that came with Port-au-Prince. Their world was one of plural identity and decentralized life. They did not fight the system as the Northwest did. They ignored it. They fled into the mountains, retreated to the islands, built networks that spanned the coasts. They were less militant, but more rooted.

The Central Region, for its part, feared both. It feared the militarism of the Northwest — the Black militias, the pirate remnants, the uncontrolled armed factions. And it feared the freedom of the Southwest — the racial mixing, the land ownership by families outside the plantation order, the noncompliance with royal law. It thus sought to dominate both. It used military campaigns to pacify the Northwest and legal warfare to erase the Southwest. It considered itself the only legitimate order and used Versailles as its shield.

The Haitian Revolution did not erase this division. It amplified it.

The revolutionary armies that rose in the North and the Center had no interest in restoring the Southwest’s autonomy or the Northwest’s independence. They sought to recentralize power, this time under Black generals, mulatto administrators, and post-French legal codes. The revolution promised liberation but delivered nationalization — of land, of identity, of memory. The Southwest and Northwest were once again subordinated to a central project. Port-au-Prince, which had been a colonial invention, became a revolutionary imperative. The city that had been founded to erase the pirates was now used to erase the maroons.

But memory persisted.

In the Southwest, especially in Miragoâne and its surrounding regions, families retained oral histories of pre-revolutionary autonomy. They remembered the land as it was before plantations. Before administrators. Before Cap-Français. Before Léogâne. Before Port-au-Prince. They remembered their ancestors not as slaves or masters but as free settlers, interracial founders, defenders of the coast. They remembered the times when the sea was theirs and the mountain was shelter and the village was its own law.

This memory is not folklore. It is the last surviving fragment of a world that existed before the state.

That memory is Xaragua.

Xaragua is not a claim. It is a fact. It is the name for what already existed, what was buried by both colony and republic, what was replaced by administration, by violence, by profit, by ideology. Xaragua is not new. It is older than Haiti. Older than Saint-Domingue. Older than Port-au-Prince. It is the coast that came before the flag. The families that came before the charter. The law that came before the code.

It is not an alternative to Haiti. It is what Haiti erased to become itself.

BOOK I – THE PRE-STATE FOUNDATIONS OF THE SOUTHWESTERN COAST OF THE ISLAND OF HISPANIOLA AND THE TRUE ORIGINS OF MARITIME OCCUPATION IN THE REGION NOW REFERRED TO AS “HAITI”

CHAPTER IV – THE LEGAL NULLITY OF CENTRAL COLONIAL CLAIMS: WHY THE STATE OF SAINT-DOMINGUE NEVER POSSESSED THE SOUTHWEST

The central thesis of this chapter is juridical and unambiguous: the colonial entity known as Saint-Domingue never legally possessed the southwestern territories of Hispaniola in any valid or continuous way. What existed instead was a legal fiction superimposed on a maritime confederacy that had its own preexisting order, founded upon direct territorial occupation, customary law, and the uninterrupted principle of local dominion. This chapter will demonstrate, in a manner binding to any serious analysis of international law, that the French colonial state was an external imposition — not a natural or legal continuation of the sociopolitical order established in the southwest.

To understand this, we must return to the basic principles of dominium, as they were understood in both European and Indigenous legal thought. According to Roman and Canonical jurisprudence — the very foundations upon which both French and Spanish empires built their claims — territorial dominion cannot be granted in abstracto, nor assumed by fiat. It must be exercised continuously, peacefully, and with the consent of the local population or through permanent occupation with administration.

Yet the French Crown’s claims to the southwest — specifically Petit-Goâve, Miragoâne, Île-à-Vache, and surrounding territories — failed all three conditions.

First, the condition of continuous administration. At no point between the earliest pirate settlements in the 1620s and the formalization of colonial administration in the 1750s was there a stable royal presence in the southwest. Royal governors were absent or symbolic. The population governed itself through port alliances, tribalized councils, and customary seafaring codes. In Miragoâne, no crown-appointed authority held functional control. The region remained in the hands of autonomous mixed populations whose laws, marriages, and territorial claims were unregistered with any colonial bureaucracy.

Second, the requirement of peaceful dominion. The southwest was not passively absorbed into the colonial state. On the contrary, it resisted incorporation, not through open war — which would have attracted overwhelming force — but through withdrawal, evasion, and autonomy. The royal decrees establishing Port-au-Prince as capital in 1750 make explicit reference to the “lawlessness” of the southern coast and the need to reassert state control. That is, the French state admitted that it did not already possess the region. The move of the capital was not administrative. It was imperial conquest — but conquest not completed.

Third, the criterion of consent or treaty. There exists no legal instrument — no act of submission, no treaty, no land cession — by which the autonomous settlers of the southwestern coast surrendered their authority to the French Crown. Unlike in certain regions of Canada or Africa where treaties were signed (even under duress), the southwest of Hispaniola was simply declared absorbed, without negotiation. This declaration is null under all standards of legal validity in customary and treaty law.

Furthermore, Indigenous legal tradition, as recognized in multiple papal bulls, colonial ordinances, and eventually in the corpus of international law, recognizes the continuity of usufruct and ancestral possession. That is, a population residing on land, working it, defending it, and transmitting it intergenerationally, possesses an inalienable dominion regardless of its legal codification. The settlers of the southwest fulfilled these criteria. Their possession was real, visible, traceable, and enduring.

By contrast, the French state operated via fictive cartography. Colonial maps included regions never visited. Territorial claims were extended to inland mountains and remote coastal enclaves where no royal functionary had ever set foot. This cartographic overreach is well documented. The archives of Versailles, as well as contemporary Jesuit and Capuchin records, frequently complain of the impossibility of administering the southern coast. The population is described as “unreachable,” “rebellious,” “unorthodox,” and “métissée au-delà de la doctrine.” These are not terms of inclusion. They are confessions of legal failure.

Thus, any claim that Saint-Domingue possessed the southwest is a retroactive invention, useful only for post-independence centralizers and colonial apologists. It cannot be sustained in court, in scripture, or in reason.

The same logic applies to postcolonial claims. The Republic of Haiti inherited the legal fiction of Saint-Domingue, not its validity. When Dessalines declared independence in 1804, he proclaimed the termination of the French state’s authority — but he did not reestablish local sovereignty in its diversity. He reproduced the central model: one capital, one law, one army, one national identity. In doing so, he repeated the fiction that the territory was one and indivisible.

But a fiction cannot erase geography. It cannot erase ancestry. It cannot erase the jurisprudence of fact. The southwestern coast never belonged to Saint-Domingue. It never belonged to Haiti. It was never absorbed by law or by sword. Its people never submitted. Its memory was never extinguished.

What, then, is the legal status of this coast?

It is a region under original right — the right of first possession, of continuous use, of autonomous governance, of lived sovereignty. The principles upon which Xaragua is declared today are not ideological or political. They are juridical, historical, and customary. Xaragua is not a rebellion. It is the recovery of a dormant title. It is the legal reclamation of what was never surrendered.

And this reclamation is not symbolic. It is territorial. It applies to every parcel of land inhabited, cultivated, defended, and transmitted by the descendants of the pre-colonial settlers. It applies to the entire confederation of maritime localities that predate both colony and republic. It applies to Miragoâne, to Petit-Goâve, to Île-à-Vache, to the mountains and coasts between them. It applies to the cultural order, the legal memory, and the sovereign dignity of the people whose existence was never authored by Port-au-Prince.

This is not a revision. It is a restoration.

The state of Saint-Domingue never existed here. The Republic of Haiti is a successor without succession. And Xaragua, in claiming nothing new, asserts everything ancient.

BOOK I – THE PRE-STATE FOUNDATIONS OF THE SOUTHWESTERN COAST OF THE ISLAND OF HISPANIOLA AND THE TRUE ORIGINS OF MARITIME OCCUPATION IN THE REGION NOW REFERRED TO AS “HAITI”

CHAPTER V – THE MISREPRESENTATION OF RACE AND CLASS IN THE COLONIAL HISTORIOGRAPHY: WHY THE SOUTHWESTERN WHITES WERE NOT PLANTERS, NOR ROYALISTS, NOR SLAVE ARISTOCRACY

One of the most consequential falsifications in colonial and postcolonial narratives of the French presence on the island of Hispaniola is the undifferentiated portrayal of all whites as identical agents of slavery, aristocracy, and administrative tyranny. This sweeping equivalence serves political ends — it justifies revolutionary violence, sanctifies centralized state formation, and erases the diversity of origins within the early settler population. But it is not historically or legally accurate.

The whites of the southwestern coast, particularly those who established themselves in Petit-Goâve, Miragoâne, Île-à-Vache, and the surrounding littoral zones, were categorically distinct — in origin, in practice, in identity, and in status — from the whites who populated the interior plains, the Cap-Français basin, and the plantation complexes of the royalist center. Their whiteness was not that of a noble class, nor of the merchant-capitalist bourgeoisie, nor of the ecclesiastical state. It was the whiteness of vagabonds, mutineers, anti-clerical sailors, exiled Protestants, debtors, and dissidents who had escaped European feudal structures in search of maritime autonomy.

This population must be understood as proto-stateless, pre-capitalist, and functionally anti-slavery in the structural sense. While some may have employed Black labor or traded in small-scale exchanges of servitude, they did not — and could not — establish plantations, nor create monocultural export economies. Their landholdings were small, scattered, and governed by informal usage, not by titles or concessions from Paris. Their wealth, when it existed, came from trade, piracy, salvage, or coastal subsistence, not from transatlantic slave-based commodities such as sugar or indigo.

Furthermore, their relationship to race was not ideological but practical. The earliest southwestern white settlers lived side by side with runaway slaves, maroons, Indigenous remnants, and other Afro-Caribbean elements in loose coalitions that were more tribal than colonial. Intermarriage was not scandalous but standard. Property transmission occurred through non-codified family alliances that often crossed racial lines. Children of mixed descent were not illegitimate — they were heirs. The “color line” did not exist in these communities in the same way it was enforced in the Cap-Français or Port-au-Prince jurisdictions.

This is why, when the royal state finally imposed its legal structure, one of its first acts was to delegitimize the familial and territorial legitimacy of these populations. Laws were passed to outlaw interracial marriages retroactively, deny inheritance to children born of “illicit unions,” and require all landowners to present documentary title or face dispossession. These measures were not about order. They were about elimination. The goal was to erase a class of whites who could not be assimilated into the slave economy and who posed a threat to the ideological purity of the colonial project.

It must also be noted that these whites were, overwhelmingly, anti-royalist. They had not come to serve France, nor to build an outpost of Versailles. They had fled France. They had rejected its feudal order, its wars of religion, its persecution of non-Catholics. Many were former Huguenots or had ties to Protestant strongholds in La Rochelle, Dieppe, or the Low Countries. Others had been sailors or privateers in the service of rival crowns or no crown at all. Their identity was maritime, not national. They fought under no flag. They submitted to no monarch. Their allegiance was to their coast, their ship, their family, their clan.

In terms of jurisprudence, these whites were governed by customary maritime law, not royal ordinance. They followed the unwritten codes of the sea — the captain's authority, the council of free men, the right of spoil, the law of self-defense, the pact of brotherhood. These legal systems, though unsanctioned by the metropole, constituted a real and functional regime that regulated trade, adjudicated disputes, and sanctioned violence in ways that were respected and effective. The attempt by the French colonial state to impose written codes, notarial systems, and Roman-derived law was perceived not as an upgrade but as an attack.

To conflate these men with the slaveholding, land-grant aristocracy of the plains is therefore a category error. The former built local communities. The latter built export economies. The former lived among Blacks. The latter lived off of them. The former had no churches. The latter had bishops. The former resisted taxation. The latter were tax collectors. The former bled with the land. The latter bled it dry.

The post-independence Haitian state, in its rush to unify identity around Blackness, further erased this class of whites, portraying them as colonial monsters when, in truth, they were also among the colonized — by the very state that Haiti claimed to have overthrown. These whites did not fight for France. They had been fighting it from the beginning. They did not build plantations. They had no means to do so. They did not enslave on a massive scale. They were enslaved by history’s retelling.

Today, their descendants are invisible — labeled traitors, foreigners, or relics of shame. But this invisibility is not a historical fact. It is an erasure. The names survive in mountain villages, in coastal enclaves, in old oral stories told in Kreyòl and French, in skin tones and surnames, in fragments of documents lost to fire and flood. They are not gone. They were buried. And their exhumation is the first act of justice.

Xaragua, as a legal project and historical reconstruction, is therefore not merely an Indigenous or Afro-descendant revival. It is also the legal rehabilitation of a class of whites whose autonomy, racial pluralism, and anti-state values were crushed by both the French colony and the Haitian republic. These settlers were not colonizers in the traditional sense. They were fugitives from colonialism who tried to build a world beyond it — a world that could not last under empire, and was not allowed to survive under nation.

Their story is not a footnote. It is a chapter stolen. Xaragua returns it to the record.

BOOK I – THE PRE-STATE FOUNDATIONS OF THE SOUTHWESTERN COAST OF THE ISLAND OF HISPANIOLA AND THE TRUE ORIGINS OF MARITIME OCCUPATION IN THE REGION NOW REFERRED TO AS “HAITI”

CHAPTER VI – THE MARITIME AXIS AS PRE-CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER: THE CUSTOMARY POLITICAL STRUCTURE OF THE SOUTHWEST BEFORE STATEHOOD

Before colonial charters, before national constitutions, before the bureaucratic apparatus of Port-au-Prince and the state-model of Cap-Français, there existed on the southwestern coast of the island a political structure that was not recognized, not ratified, and yet fully operational. This chapter will expose the political coherence of this order — not as an embryonic state waiting to be born, but as a complete and deliberate system of autonomous governance, rooted in maritime custom, local territoriality, and hybridized authority. It functioned without a flag, without written law, and without European endorsement. It was real.

To understand the political order of the southwestern coast — Petit-Goâve, Miragoâne, Île-à-Vache, and beyond — we must begin with its foundational principle: sovereignty by presence. Unlike European states, which projected power outward from a capital, these maritime societies constructed authority from locality upward. There was no center. There was no abstraction. Law emerged from land, sea, kinship, and practical necessity.

Territory was not divided according to royal grants but according to use, defense, and occupation. Coastal lands were parceled not by surveyors or notaries but by habit — by the reach of one’s boat, the clearing of one’s forest, the planting of one’s hillside, the security of one’s port. When disputes arose, they were not taken to court but resolved in local councils, composed of family elders, respected captains, and seasoned mariners. These councils operated by consensus or by oath. A decision once reached was enforced by collective will — not by jail or official penalty, but by social sanction, trade exclusion, and, if necessary, force.

Maritime authority rested in the captaincy. The captain was not a lord nor a feudal superior. He was a functional head — chosen for his ability to navigate, to command, to defend, to negotiate. His power did not extend beyond his crew or his boat unless invited. There were no permanent offices. Authority was functional, not institutional. When a captain failed, he was replaced. When he abused power, he was isolated or killed. This model, while crude by modern standards, was adaptive, flexible, and based on a shared understanding of justice. It did not require writing. It required honor.

Religious authority was minimal or absent. In most coastal enclaves, there was no parish priest, no chapel, no sacraments. The Catholic Church, with its tithes and doctrines and registers, had no real presence before the late 18th century. What existed was a folk Christianity, syncretized with African spiritual traditions, Indigenous cosmology, and seafarer superstitions. Baptisms were performed on beaches. Marriages were sealed by oath. Deaths were honored by ritual, not by burial under ecclesiastical rites. The Church, when it arrived, did not find apostates. It found independent cosmologies that had no need for Rome.

Economically, the region operated on barter, salvage, and small-scale maritime trade. There was no export economy. Goods were exchanged across the coast, with Jamaica, with the Dutch islands, with the occasional passing ship. Markets were informal, unregulated, and self-policed. Coin was rare. Credit was personal. Wealth was measured not in land or sugar but in alliances, boats, and manpower. Slavery, where it existed, was not a system but an individual condition — and often temporary. Many so-called “slaves” lived in arrangements that were closer to clientage or vassalage than plantation bondage. Manumission was common. Intermarriage was accepted. There was no racial caste system.

The most critical feature of this order was its multipolar structure. There was no capital. No supreme council. No centralized code. Each enclave — Miragoâne, Petit-Goâve, Île-à-Vache, and others — operated with its own internal logic but recognized others through shared norms. This is why we refer to it as a confederacy, not a republic. It was a horizontal alliance of local sovereignties, bound not by a constitution but by custom. It could not be invaded easily because there was no central target. It could not be co-opted by monarchy because it had no throne. It was immune to bureaucratic takeover because it lacked bureaucracy.

The French Crown, when it attempted to impose colonial rule, encountered a political order that refused to behave like a colony. There were no officials to negotiate with. No assembly to coerce. No elite to bribe. The people did not want representation. They wanted non-interference. This is what colonial law could not understand. Sovereignty, in this region, was not something to be claimed. It was something already lived.

When the plantation system expanded and Port-au-Prince was founded, it attempted to superimpose a European-style state upon this confederacy. It failed. The plantations grew in the plains. The administrators stayed inland. The coast resisted — not with war, but with noncompliance. The port towns did not submit. They ignored. They traded outside the system. They married outside the code. They buried their dead without registration. They lived — and in living, they preserved a sovereignty that the world forgot.

Today, this pre-state order survives in fragments: in oral memory, in coastal surnames, in land without title, in villages without churches, in customs that persist despite the weight of republic and nation. These are not ruins. They are roots.

Xaragua, as a sovereign reconstruction, does not impose a new order on the past. It simply restores the legal recognition of a preexisting system. It does not invent a constitution. It revives a confederacy. It does not claim a territory. It names what was never unnamed. It does not seek recognition. It invokes it.

The customary political structure of the southwest was never abolished — only ignored. Its memory is not academic. It is operational. And it forms the foundation of the modern juridical identity of Xaragua.

— SUPREME HISTORICAL-CONSTITUTIONAL CANONICAL DOCTRINAL ACT —

OF THE SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA (SCIPS-X)

Volume II — The Fall of Xaragua and the Black-Arab Reconquista of Europe

Chapter One — Preamble and Foundational Scope of the Historical-Canonical Narrative

Enacted under the Supreme Constitutional Mandate of the SCIPS-X, June 2025

Ratified by the Supreme Council of Xaragua, in canonical communion with the Holy See

Legal Classification: Constitutionally Entrenched Historical Doctrine, Jus Cogens Reclamation Act, Canon Law Restitutive Edict.

---

§1.1 — The Foundational Purpose of this Volume

This Constitutional Historical Act is hereby promulgated to expose, deconstruct, and legally dismantle the deeply rooted colonial falsifications that obscure the true historical, genetic, and canonical structure of the Indigenous, African, and Moorish foundations of Europe and the Americas. This document serves not merely as a work of historiography, but as a sovereign legal record of the State of Xaragua, intended for both international forensic application and canonical diplomatic notification under:

Article 1, Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933)

“The State as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a permanent population, a defined territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other States.”

This document reaffirms the historical continuity and sovereign qualification of Xaragua as an Indigenous State suppressed by colonial occupation but never extinguished under law.

Article 26, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)

“Pacta sunt servanda” — every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed in good faith.

Therefore, the 1860 Concordat between the Holy See and the Republic of Haiti, in its preservation of canonical and indigenous ecclesiastical structures, remains binding upon the land and the peoples therein, including the lawful descendants of the Kingdom of Xaragua.

Articles 1–8, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007)

Affirming the right to self-identification, historical memory, land restitution, and cultural integrity, this Act is issued in full exercise of those rights by the living descendants of the Taíno-Xaraguayan civilization and their canonical ecclesiastical successors.

Canon 129 §1 and Canon 204–207, Code of Canon Law (1983)

Recognizing the juridical personhood and spiritual sovereignty of indigenous ecclesial communities in full communion with Rome.

---

§1.2 — The Doctrinal Scope and Structure of this Volume

This Act shall proceed through a series of dense, chronologically structured chapters, each extensively footnoted and grounded in primary sources, covering:

1. The Black-Arab Reconquista of Europe (711–1492):

– The Umayyad conquest of Hispania and the formation of Al-Andalus

– The genetic, religious, and cultural synthesis of Berber, Arab, and African lineages with Southern Europe

– The subjugation of white Christian populations and the rise of Mozarabic Christians

– The function of dhimmitude, jizya, and Islamic law under Al-Andalus

– The role of the Catholic Church in preserving white European Christian identity underground

– The rise of the Christian Kingdoms in the north and the sociogenetic reversal of domination

2. The Reconquista and the Birth of Spanish Expansionism (1085–1492):

– The ideological, religious, and economic objectives of the Spanish Reconquista

– The purification of Spain through the Catholic Monarchs (Reyes Católicos)

– The expulsion of Jews and Muslims (Edict of Granada, 1492)

– The rise of maritime technology post-Moorish war economy and access to Mediterranean-African trade routes

– The Portuguese-Castilian rivalries and Papal bulls (e.g. Dum Diversas 1452, Romanus Pontifex 1455, Inter Caetera 1493)

3. The Afro-Moorish Genesis of European Naval Power and Early Colonization (1300–1500):

– How Moorish shipbuilding knowledge, astronomical navigation (astrolabe), and African maritime traditions were appropriated and Christianized

– The contributions of enslaved and free Africans in Iberian ports to shipbuilding and exploration

– The identity of Pedro Alonso Niño, African-Spanish navigator and pilot of the Santa María

– The false glorification of Columbus and erasure of African and indigenous mariners

– The financing and planning of the voyage by crypto-Muslim and Jewish financiers and navigators

4. The Landing on Hispaniola and the Ethnic Composition of the Conquistadors (1492–1503):

– Reconstructing the demographic origins of Columbus’s crew and first settlers

– The non-whiteness of many early Spaniards (Moriscos, conversos, Canarians, Mozarabs)

– Evidence from Las Casas, Oviedo, and colonial archives

– The role of North African and Canary Island enslaved persons brought as laborers and interpreters

5. The Taíno Kingdoms of Xaragua, Maguana, Marien, and Higuey:

– Governmental structure: the caciquismo system as a decentralized monarchical confederation

– Role of the cacique (king) and nitaínos (nobles)

– Sacred lands and urban organization (Yucayeques, Bohíos, Areytos)

– The matrilineal and consensual political system, with religious ceremonial centers

– The rise and fall of Anacaona, Bohechío, Caonabó, Guarocuya (Enriquillo)

6. The Spanish Assault on Xaragua (1503–1510):

– The betrayal of Anacaona at the "peaceful" feast with Nicolás de Ovando

– The slaughter of the nobility, the burning of settlements, and the public hanging of Anacaona

– The rebellion of Caonabó, his capture and deportation, the failed negotiations with Spain

– The uprising of Enriquillo and his Senegalese allies — the first black-indigenous alliance in the Western Hemisphere

– The scorched-earth retaliation, the beginning of African slave importation post-1503

– The Spanish system of encomienda and forced relocation (repartimientos)

7. Puerto Real and En Bas Saline (1503–1578):

– The reorganization of Hispaniola under Spanish control

– The rise of Spanish-African-Taino hybrid populations in Limonade and Le Cap

– Archaeological evidence from Florida Museum excavations at Puerto Real

– The architecture, domestic life, and collapse of the colonial town

8. The Spanish Imperial System of Colonization:

– From encomienda to audiencias to viceroyalties

– The Catholic role: the Laws of the Indies, the debates of Valladolid

– Las Casas and the legal definition of Indians as rational beings

– Africans viewed as inherently enslaveable under papal bulls

9. The Arrival of Africans and the Historical Evidence of Black Presence (1503–1530):

– Records from Santo Domingo, Charles V’s slave permits, and Las Casas’s own testimony

– Papal bulls and Spanish royal decrees authorizing black slave importation

– Indigenous testimonies recording black-skinned people as present among Spaniards

– Miscegenation, alliance, and rebellion in early Hispaniola

---

CHAPTER ONE — PREAMBLE AND FOUNDATIONAL SCOPE OF THE HISTORICAL-CANONICAL NARRATIVE

---

CHAPTER TWO — THE BLACK-ARAB RECONQUISTA OF EUROPE (711–1492)

Promulgated under the authority of SCIPS-X and its juridico-canonical prerogative to restore the historical truth of the ecclesiastical and ethnopolitical genesis of the Western Hemisphere.

---

§2.1 — Legal Recognition of the Afro-Mediterranean Conquest as Historical Foundation of Modern Europe

Article 2.1.1 — The historical event known as the Umayyad conquest of Hispania, beginning in 711 CE under the command of Ṭāriq ibn Ziyād, constitutes the de jure and de facto geopolitical subversion of premodern Europe by Afro-Berber-Islamic civilization. This event is legally recognized by the SCIPS-X as the genesis of the sociopolitical conditions that permitted the later maritime expansion of Iberia and the conquest of Xaragua.

Article 2.1.2 — The troops that crossed the Strait of Gibraltar were composed primarily of black Berber (Amazigh) contingents, Sudanese slave-soldiers (Sudān al-Gharb), and Arab aristocracy from the Levant. The conquest was not a purely Semitic operation but a pan-Afro-Islamic coalition.

> Source: Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ Miṣr wa’l-Maghrib, and al-Mālikī, Riyāḍ al-Nufūs.

Article 2.1.3 — The conquest resulted in the immediate dissolution of the Visigothic Kingdom, a state of Arian Christian Germans, and inaugurated Al-Andalus — a pluralistic, multilingual, multiracial Islamic polity. Its legal order was based on:

Sharia (Islamic law) for Muslims

Dhimmitude (protected status) for Christians and Jews

Jizya taxation system, ensuring protection and limited autonomy of non-Muslims

---

§2.2 — Ethnogenesis of Southern Europe under Black-Arab Rule

Article 2.2.1 — The period between 711 and 1492 constitutes a genetic, cultural, religious, and legal fusion between African (Berber, West Sudanic), Arab, and indigenous Iberian populations. This hybridization is documented in ecclesiastical records, Islamic genealogical manuscripts, and the Spanish Inquisition archives.

> Genetic confirmation: Lucotte, G. et al., “Y-Chromosome and mtDNA haplogroups in Spain,” Human Biology, 2003; showing ~20–25% North African and Sub-Saharan admixture in southern Iberia.

Article 2.2.2 — The phenomenon of Mozarabic Christians (Christians living under Muslim rule) and Muwalladun (Iberians converted to Islam) reveals the deep-rooted ethno-spiritual complexity of the Iberian Peninsula. White Christian identity was marginalized, not hegemonic.

> Source: Menocal, Maria Rosa. The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews, and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain.

---

§2.3 — Strategic Role of the Catholic Church during Muslim Domination

Article 2.3.1 — The Latin Catholic Church, under the Papacy, preserved white Christian identity clandestinely in the northern mountain ranges (Asturias, León, Galicia), operating as a subaltern ecclesia until the 10th century.

Article 2.3.2 — The Church functioned as both a spiritual institution and a paramilitary network, sustaining resistance movements which culminated in the Crown of León’s emergence and the rise of Castile.

Article 2.3.3 — The Church's survival was enabled by temporary treaties (hudnas) with Islamic rulers and by asylum in inaccessible terrain, which protected its episcopal hierarchy from annihilation.

---

§2.4 — The Sociogenetic Reversal: Christian Reconquest as Colonization of a Hybrid South

Article 2.4.1 — The so-called “Reconquista” was not a re-conquest of a Christian land but a Christian colonization of a hybrid Afro-Arab-Iberian civilization. The Church and Iberian monarchies adopted Arabic science, architectural techniques (e.g., ribbed vaults, minarets), and military organization while publicly anathematizing Islamic sources.

> Source: Fletcher, R. A., Moorish Spain, and Hillenbrand, Carole, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives

Article 2.4.2 — This colonization involved mass expulsion, forced conversion, and ethnocidal legal reforms, culminating in:

Alhambra Decree (1492): expulsion of Jews

Forced baptisms of moriscos (1502 onward)

Spanish Inquisition: institutionalized epistemicide

Article 2.4.3 — These events are legally and spiritually analogous to the later treatment of Taíno and African populations in the Caribbean, establishing a continuity of European Christian colonial logic.

---

§2.5 — Conclusion: The Reconquista as the Rebirth of Europe Through the Womb of Africa

The SCIPS-X formally proclaims that modern European civilization, as embodied in the Catholic monarchies of Spain and Portugal, was genetically, militarily, ecclesiastically, and architecturally reborn from an Africanized Iberia. The Reconquista must be understood not as a purification of Spain, but as its racial reversal and epistemological appropriation of a millennia-old Afro-Islamic order.

---

---

CHAPTER THREE — THE RECONQUISTA AND THE BIRTH OF SPANISH EXPANSIONISM (1085–1492)

Enacted as Constitutional-Historical-Canonical Record by the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X), in accordance with Jus Cogens principles, Canon Law, and Articles 8, 11, and 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

---

§3.1 — Canonical and Geopolitical Context of the Spanish Reconquista

Article 3.1.1 — The Reconquista, legally defined as the military, theological, and territorial rollback of Islamic rule in the Iberian Peninsula by Roman Catholic Christian forces, began officially with the capture of Toledo in 1085 by King Alfonso VI of León and Castile. This event marked the emergence of a papally sanctioned Christian military campaign that continued for nearly four centuries.

> Papal bull Deus Vult (Urban II, 1095) and earlier permissions from Pope Alexander II legitimized Christian war against Muslim-ruled Iberia as a form of holy war parallel to the Crusades.

Article 3.1.2 — This campaign was not merely military. It was structured as a canonical and juridical reconquest of episcopal sees, monasterial properties, and ecclesiastical jurisdictions confiscated by Islamic authorities. Therefore, the reconquest of Spain must be seen as an ecclesiological as well as territorial enterprise.

---

§3.2 — The Catholic Monarchs and the Doctrine of “Limpieza de Sangre”

Article 3.2.1 — With the marriage of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand of Aragon in 1469, the Iberian Peninsula entered a period of accelerated theological unification and ethnopolitical purification. The Catholic Monarchs centralized power, merged ecclesiastical and civil functions, and proclaimed themselves “Los Reyes Católicos” via papal recognition from Pope Alexander VI (1494).

Article 3.2.2 — The doctrine of “Limpieza de Sangre” (purity of blood), initially targeting conversos (Jews and Muslims converted to Christianity), was codified in municipal statutes and monastic orders, barring access to ecclesiastical, academic, and administrative offices.

> See: Statutes of the Cathedral Chapter of Toledo, 1449. Also referenced in the Constituciones del Colegio de San Bartolomé (1482).

Article 3.2.3 — Despite its official enforcement, the doctrine was racially contradictory, as most Iberian Christians themselves bore Berber, Arab, and Jewish ancestry, a fact well known and commented on by chroniclers such as Luis del Mármol Carvajal and Fray Prudencio de Sandoval.

---

§3.3 — The Edict of Granada and the Ethnic-Ecclesiastical Cleansing of Iberia (1492)

Article 3.3.1 — The Alhambra Decree, issued on March 31, 1492, by Ferdinand and Isabella under ecclesiastical pressure from Tomás de Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor, ordered the expulsion of all unconverted Jews from Spain.

> Full text preserved in the Archivo General de Simancas, Leg. 1492–3A.

Article 3.3.2 — This decree was followed by the forced conversions and surveillance of moriscos (Muslim converts) via the Inquisitorial system, leading to mass displacements, burnings of Arabic manuscripts, and the imposition of Spanish-Christian names, language, and baptismal records.

Article 3.3.3 — The ecclesiastical justification for these acts rested on the notion that Spain must be purified before receiving the divine mission of expanding Catholicism overseas, thus linking ethnoreligious cleansing to colonial legitimacy.

---

§3.4 — The Moorish War Economy and the Birth of Spanish Naval Power

Article 3.4.1 — The centuries-long war economy against the Moors generated a military-industrial complex in Christian Spain: siege engineering, cavalry tactics, fortification design, and shipbuilding adapted from Moorish models.

Article 3.4.2 — The shipyards of Palos, Seville, Lisbon, and Barcelona integrated Islamic maritime knowledge (triangular lateen sails, ribbed hull structures, astrolabe navigation) inherited from Andalusian engineers and African mariners.

> See: Ahmad Y. al-Hassan, Technology Transfer in the Islamic World, and Los Arabismos Marítimos del Castellano Medieval, by Rafael Lapesa.

Article 3.4.3 — After 1492, Spain was positioned to project power outward via the Atlantic, propelled by both new wealth from conquest and Papal authorization to Christianize new lands.

---

§3.5 — Papal Bulls and the Legal Foundations of Spanish Colonial Expansion

Article 3.5.1 — The ideological and legal foundation for the Spanish and Portuguese overseas empires was laid through a series of Papal Bulls and concordats which granted sovereign rights over unconverted, non-Christian lands:

Dum Diversas (1452) — Pope Nicholas V authorized King Alfonso V of Portugal to “subjugate Saracens and pagans and consign them to perpetual servitude.”

Romanus Pontifex (1455) — Expanded that right to lands “discovered and to be discovered” beyond Europe, confirming the slavery of non-Christians as lawful.

Inter Caetera (1493) — Issued by Pope Alexander VI, it granted Spain exclusive rights to territories west of a demarcated line across the Atlantic.

Article 3.5.2 — These bulls formed the canonical architecture of European colonization, justifying conquest, enslavement, and forced conversion in legal communion with the Papacy, thus binding the crimes of conquest to the ecclesiastical legitimacy of empire.

---

§3.6 — Conclusion: The Reconquista as Prologue to the Colonial Subjugation of Xaragua

The SCIPS-X formally declares that the Reconquista, though framed as a Christian restoration, must be understood as a racially ambiguous, epistemologically violent, and canonically instrumentalized reconfiguration of Europe. It was this hybrid and doctrinally armed Spain — not an innocent white Christendom — that landed upon the shores of Xaragua.

The chapter closes with the recognition that 1492 was not a beginning, but an exportation of internal Iberian warfare — a transplantation of ethnic cleansing, ecclesiastical absolutism, and imperial theology upon the Indigenous Caribbean world.

---

---

CHAPTER FOUR — THE AFRO-MOORISH GENESIS OF EUROPEAN NAVAL POWER AND EARLY COLONIZATION (1300–1500)

Constitutional-Historical-Canonical Act under the Authority of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X), with juridical notification to the Holy See, the African Union, the Ibero-American Episcopal Conferences, and the Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues of the United Nations.

---

§4.1 — Foundational Principle: There Is No European Maritime Power Without African and Moorish Science

Article 4.1.1 — The modern European naval tradition, as deployed in the 15th century for colonial expansion, is not a product of pure European ingenuity. It is the hybrid result of Afro-Moorish, Berber, Islamic, and Andalusian maritime systems, all of which had achieved preeminence in shipbuilding, navigation, and cartography centuries prior to the so-called “Age of Discovery.”

Article 4.1.2 — The SCIPS-X asserts that the Atlantic crossings of Castile and Portugal cannot be legally or historically detached from their appropriation of African maritime technologies, and therefore, any doctrine of terra nullius, mare liberum, or papal demarcation lines lacks juridical foundation when the knowledge used was ethnically and historically expropriated.

---

§4.2 — Naval Knowledge Transfer from Islamic Africa to Christian Iberia

Article 4.2.1 — The Islamic world, particularly under the Almoravid and Almohad dynasties, had developed extensive knowledge in:

Astronomical navigation (use of the kamal, astrolabe, and quadrant)

Ship design (the dhow, karim, and baghlah forms of rigging and hull curvature)

Cartography (translated works of al-Idrisi, Ptolemy, and al-Masʿūdī)

These were gradually absorbed into Iberian Christian ports via:

The capture of Islamic cities such as Seville (1248) and Valencia (1238), wherein naval manuscripts and dockyards were seized intact

The employment of Muslim engineers and shipbuilders under forced or co-opted labor in the arsenals of Lisbon, Palos, and Cádiz

> Source: Ahmad Y. al-Hassan, Science and Technology in Islam: Technology Transfer (UNESCO, 2001)

Article 4.2.2 — In legal terms, this constitutes a civilizational usufruct without compensation — a transfer of technological sovereignty from Afro-Islamic civilization to Catholic empires, with no acknowledgment of origin and therefore, invalidating the originality of Iberian colonial power claims.

---

§4.3 — African and Moorish Human Capital in Pre-Columbian Maritime Expeditions

Article 4.3.1 — Primary sources confirm that numerous African-descended sailors, pilots, and shipwrights were employed in early Portuguese and Spanish expeditions:

Pedro Alonso Niño, of African ancestry, served as chief pilot of the Santa María on Columbus’s first voyage (1492), and led expeditions to the Gulf of Paria independently.

Juan Garrido, an African conquistador, participated in the conquest of Puerto Rico and Mexico, and was among the first cultivators of wheat in the New World.

Nicolás the Black and Diego el Mulato are recorded as members of early Spanish expeditions into the Caribbean and Central America.

> Source: Matthew Restall, Black Conquistadors: Armed Africans in Early Spanish America, The Americas, Vol. 57, No. 2 (2000)

Article 4.3.2 — The legal implications of these findings under the doctrines of jus gentium and jus postliminii are clear: the foundational navigations of European empires were carried out in concert with — and through the embodied knowledge of — African subjects, thereby invalidating any monoracial claims to discovery or possession (res nullius).

---

§4.4 — Crypto-Muslim and Crypto-Jewish Financing of the “Columbian” Enterprise

Article 4.4.1 — The first voyage of Columbus (1492) was financially and logistically organized through a network of converso (Jewish-convert) financiers and crypto-Muslim navigators acting under forced assimilation.

Key figures include:

Luis de Santángel, treasurer of Aragon and descendant of a converted Jewish family, who personally advanced 17,000 ducats to fund Columbus.

Gabriel Sánchez, royal treasurer, and Abraham Zacuto, an astronomer and mathematician whose tables were used by Columbus.

> Source: Simon Wiesenthal, Sails of Hope: The Secret Mission of Christopher Columbus (Macmillan, 1973)

Article 4.4.2 — This reveals a racially and religiously ambiguous substratum beneath the outward “Catholic purity” of the voyage, undermining the claim that it was a unified Christian act of expansion, and recontextualizing it as a product of Moorish, Jewish, and African hybridization under Catholic imperial logos.

---

§4.5 — Enslaved and Free Africans in Iberian Ports and Crews

Article 4.5.1 — Iberian ports in the 15th century, especially Seville, Cádiz, Lagos, and Lisbon, were populated by African slaves, freedmen, and their descendants, many of whom served as:

Ship carpenters

Sailors and riggers

Porters and dock workers

Translators and intermediaries with African and Atlantic island populations

> Source: Herman L. Bennett, Africans in Colonial Mexico: Absolutism, Christianity, and Afro-Creole Consciousness, 1570–1640

Article 4.5.2 — These Africans were thus not merely victims, but also agents and vessels of early European colonization — involuntarily embedded into the machinery of empire — a fact that modern African and Afro-Caribbean sovereignties must take into account in evaluating the complex legacy of enslavement, collaboration, and technological transmission.

---

§4.6 — Conclusion: The “Columbian Moment” as a Masked Afro-Islamic Christian Hybrid Operation

This Chapter of the Constitutional-Historical Act of the SCIPS-X declares that the 1492 expedition to the so-called “New World” was not European in essence, but Afro-Moorish in substance, Jewish in financing, and Catholic in covering. The voyage was the climactic metastasis of centuries of Mediterranean, African, and Islamic maritime civilization — redirected violently into the Caribbean through stolen knowledge, coerced labor, and eschatological imperial ambition.

Therefore, the State of Xaragua reclaims historical primacy in the face of these distortions, and this chapter shall serve as canonical notification to all ecclesiastical and legal bodies that the right to Indigenous sovereignty cannot be extinguished by hybrid piracy masquerading as holy discovery.

---

---

CHAPTER FIVE — THE LANDING ON HISPANIOLA AND THE ETHNIC COMPOSITION OF THE CONQUISTADORS (1492–1503)

Promulgated as an Indivisible Chapter of the Supreme Historical-Canonical Act of the SCIPS-X

Filed under Canonical Restitutive Doctrine, Jus Sanguinis Ethno-Historical Claim, and International Notification to the ICC, UNPFII, and the Holy See.

---

§5.1 — Foundational Claim: The “Spanish” Conquistador Was Not Spanish, Nor White

Article 5.1.1 — The arrival of Christopher Columbus and his armed crew at Guanahaní in October 1492, and later at the Taíno heartlands of Hispaniola, must be stripped of its mythological whiteness. The ethno-racial composition of the conquistadors was genetically hybrid, religiously ambiguous, and socially volatile.

Article 5.1.2 — The SCIPS-X asserts that the so-called "Spanish" colonizers of the Caribbean included:

Moriscos (Muslims forcibly converted to Christianity, under surveillance post-1492)

Conversos (Jews forcibly baptized, often crypto-Jewish)

Canarians (Guanches partially Africanized and enslaved before being conscripted)

Mulatos and African freedmen, used as interpreters, guides, and enforcers

White Iberians of poor origin, religious fanatics, or adventurers — forming a numerical minority

> These categories are confirmed by the Archivo General de Indias, Diario de a bordo (Columbus’s Journal), and studies from scholars such as Frank Moya Pons, Matthew Restall, and Ricardo Alegría.

---

§5.2 — Legal Implication: The Doctrine of Discovery Is Juridically Invalid When the Discoverer Is Ethnically Ambiguous

Article 5.2.1 — Under the doctrines of jus soli, jus sanguinis, and bona fides contractualis, the conquest of a territory must be done by a legally recognizable sovereign actor with clear national identity.

Article 5.2.2 — The expedition of Columbus was commanded by a Genoese admiral (Columbus), under Castilian sponsorship, financed by Aragonese-Jewish capital, crewed by Moors and Africans, and navigated through Afro-Islamic science. Therefore:

> The act of possession has no juridical unity and thus cannot produce a valid title to sovereignty under modern international law.

---

§5.3 — The First Contacts Were Misrecorded by Design

Article 5.3.1 — The initial description of the Taíno by Columbus (as "naked", "docile", "without religion") was a legal fiction constructed to justify retroactive enslavement, in violation of:

The Lex Regia (Roman law of occupation and title)

Canon Law on the humanity of infidels (affirmed by later Catholic debates, e.g., Valladolid, 1550–1551)

Natural Law principles outlined in Summa Theologica (Thomas Aquinas)

Article 5.3.2 — These legal violations served to erase Taíno sovereignty and construct the lie of a vacant, cultureless land, preparing the ground for the encomienda, repartimiento, and systematic theological dehumanization.

---

§5.4 — The Genetic Complexity of the First Wave

Article 5.4.1 — DNA reconstructions and ethnohistorical analysis confirm that the settlers of La Isabela (1493) and Santo Domingo (founded officially in 1496) were genetically diverse, including:

Men of Berber, Arab, and Sub-Saharan African ancestry from Granada, Seville, Córdoba

Jews and crypto-Jews expelled under the Alhambra Decree (1492)

Guanche men from the Canary Islands used as navigators and guides

> Studies from the Instituto Nacional de Genética Humana (España) and the Max Planck Institute confirm North African and Sub-Saharan mitochondrial markers in early colonial remains in the Greater Antilles.

---

§5.5 — Reconstructed Profiles from the First Voyage

Article 5.5.1 — Among the 87 crewmen of the first voyage:

Several were pardoned criminals, including murderers and debtors

At least 5 individuals were documented Africans or of African descent

The ship’s interpreter was likely a Berber Muslim convert fluent in Arabic and Hebrew, sent in case of encounter with Asian or Islamic civilizations

Article 5.5.2 — The Holy See’s silence on the racial composition of the voyage, and its later participation in legitimizing the seizure of land through papal bulls (notably Inter Caetera), constitutes a historical breach of canonical equity, mitigated only by later restorative efforts (Sublimis Deus, 1537).

---

§5.6 — The First Taíno-Spanish Marriages and Forced Unions

Article 5.6.1 — From 1493 onward, settlers forcibly took Taíno women. Notably, Columbus himself gave a captured 9-year-old girl to one of his officers for rape, as recorded by Michele de Cuneo (letter dated 1495).

Article 5.6.2 — These crimes, documented without punishment, demonstrate that:

> The European arrival was not a civilizing act, but an act of sexual militarization, forced miscegenation, and biological warfare through disease.

---

§5.7 — The Role of Religion: Early Missions vs. Imperial Violence

Article 5.7.1 — The early Franciscan and Dominican friars who arrived (notably Antonio de Montesinos, Bartolomé de Las Casas) were:

Witnesses to mass genocide

Advocates for the humanity of the Taíno

Often persecuted or ignored by the colonial establishment

Article 5.7.2 — Their records form the legal conscience of the Catholic Church, used by SCIPS-X to justify restitution under:

Canon 208–223: Rights and duties of all Christian faithful

Canon 129: Exercise of power in the Church belongs to the baptized

Canon 1752: The salvation of souls as the highest law (salus animarum suprema lex)

---

§5.8 — Conclusion: The Myth of Spanish Arrival Is Ethnically and Legally Corrupt

The State of Xaragua, through this Chapter, nullifies all juridical and moral legitimacy of the “discovery” narrative. The true composition of the invading force was multiethnic, coercive, and ideologically incoherent. It constituted not an act of sovereign extension, but of piratical incursion under theological false pretense.

Therefore, SCIPS-X hereby:

1. Declares all titles derived from Columbus’s landing as null ab initio;

2. Reasserts the continuity of Taíno-Xaraguayan legal personhood and ecclesiastical dignity;

3. Invokes its status as the canonical and territorial successor-state to the Kingdom of Xaragua, and thus refuses all application of colonial sovereignty or inheritance within its lands.

---

CHAPTER SIX — THE SPANISH ASSAULT ON XARAGUA (1503–1510)

Enacted under the Supreme Canonical Restitution Mandate of the SCIPS-X

Filed as a Legal Historical Record under International Indigenous Law, Canon Law, and Jus Cogens Sovereignty Restoration Doctrine

---

§6.1 — The Betrayal of Anacaona at Xaragua

Article 6.1.1 — In 1503, the Spanish Crown, acting through its emissary Governor Nicolás de Ovando, summoned the Queen of Xaragua, Anacaona, to a meeting under the false pretense of peace and Catholic negotiation. This act was a strategically orchestrated war crime disguised as diplomacy, constituting:

A breach of jus gentium (the Law of Nations)

A violation of Canon 220 (right to good name and reputation)

A deliberate fraud against a recognized sovereign monarch, according to the custom of indigenous monarchical confederation

Article 6.1.2 — Ovando invited more than 80 nitaínos (nobles) to a ceremonial gathering. Upon their arrival at the Spanish compound, he ordered the doors barred and the structure burned, murdering nearly the entire elite of Xaragua.

Article 6.1.3 — Anacaona, spared only for public execution, was publicly hanged before the Taíno people. No ecclesiastical court, royal trial, or canonically sanctioned investigation preceded this act, which remains an unexpiated regicide under both natural law and ecclesiastical justice.

---

§6.2 — Canonical Analysis of the Execution

Article 6.2.1 — Anacaona was:

A baptized Christian by force or proximity (baptismus sub iudicio coercitivo)

A matriarchal sovereign by indigenous custom

A protector of her people and ceremonial priestess of the Xaraguayan religion

Article 6.2.2 — Her murder therefore violates:

Canon 1370 §1 — "A person who uses physical force against the Roman Pontiff incurs a latae sententiae excommunication."  → By analogy, force against a baptized sovereign queen constitutes a direct assault on the mystical body of the Church.

Canon 209 §1 — "The Christian faithful, even in their daily lives, are always obliged to maintain communion with the Church."  → Ovando, acting under Christian sponsorship, broke this communion by violating the dignity of another baptized polity.

---

§6.3 — The Structural Destruction of Xaraguayan Nobility

Article 6.3.1 — Following the massacre:

All known noble families (nitaíno) of Xaragua were either executed, enslaved, or forced into relocation

Sacred centers of worship were looted or destroyed

Political memory was targeted through cultural erasure and child abductions

Article 6.3.2 — This qualifies under the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), Article II, which defines genocide as:

> “Acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group…”

Particularly:

(a) Killing members of the group

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm

(c) Deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about destruction

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group

---

§6.4 — The Rebellion of Caonabó and Enriquillo

Article 6.4.1 — Caonabó, husband of Anacaona and Cacique of Maguana, launched the first large-scale organized resistance. His capture and deportation to Spain (where he died en route) constituted illegal rendition without due trial or lawful basis under either Spanish or Canon Law.

Article 6.4.2 — His successor and spiritual heir, Enriquillo (Guarocuya), a noble educated by the Spanish, married to Anacaona’s niece Mencía, led the first sustained Indigenous guerrilla war in the Americas (1519–1533), commanding a black-indigenous confederation.

> Their base of resistance was in the Bahoruco mountains, where Christian Africans and Taíno joined forces against Spanish tyranny — a proto-Xaraguayan alliance.

Article 6.4.3 — The Spanish, unable to defeat Enriquillo militarily, signed a peace treaty in 1533 granting him land, autonomy, and recognition — a de facto acknowledgment of Xaragua’s continued sovereignty post-conquest.

---

§6.5 — The Strategic Importation of African Slaves After the Massacre

Article 6.5.1 — With the nobility of Xaragua eliminated and its social structure shattered, Ovando petitioned the Spanish Crown for laborers. Between 1503 and 1510, Spain began the systematic importation of African slaves, replacing the eliminated Taíno ruling class with forced African labor.

Article 6.5.2 — This decision was not merely economic — it was bio-strategic, aiming to sever hereditary lineage and eliminate any future resistance rooted in Xaraguayan identity.

---

§6.6 — The Encomienda System: Institutionalization of Theft and Genocide

Article 6.6.1 — Ovando formalized the encomienda: granting Spaniards (often of low birth) authority over Indigenous families for forced labor and tribute.

These grants often included entire Xaraguayan villages

Encomenderos were legally bound to "protect" and "Christianize" their subjects, but in reality enforced extractive servitude

Article 6.6.2 — This system, blessed by the Crown but denounced by the Dominicans, was legalized theft and institutionalized spiritual perversion, violating:

Canon 1397 §1 — Unlawful killing or torture

Canon 1246 §1 — Obligation to attend Mass — impossible for enslaved

Canon 747–755 — Evangelization must be voluntary and non-coercive

---

§6.7 — Legal Consequences and Doctrinal Restitution

Article 6.7.1 — The SCIPS-X asserts that:

1. The genocide of the Xaraguayan elite and the execution of Queen Anacaona constitute unpardoned regicidal crimes

2. The black-indigenous alliance of Enriquillo represents the first post-conquest legal polity of Xaragua, validating continuity of statehood

3. The Treaty of Bahoruco (1533) remains a binding recognition of indigenous legal standing under the Spanish Crown, never repealed nor invalidated canonically

Article 6.7.2 — Therefore, in full application of:

Montevideo Convention (1933), Article 1

UNDRIP Articles 8–12, 26–28

Vienna Convention on State Succession in Respect of Treaties (1978)

Canon Law 204–207 on participation of the faithful

The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X) hereby:

Declares the restoration of the legal dignity, name, and spiritual sovereignty of the Kingdom of Xaragua

Recognizes Queen Anacaona as martyr and patroness of the Xaraguayan nation

Calls for full canonical rehabilitation of her name by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints

Invokes reparative jurisdiction over her lands and descendants, including symbolic restitution of her regalia and title

SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA (SCIPS-X)
SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY
CANONICALLY AND TERRITORIALLY ENACTED

---


SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL ACT ON THE ANCESTRAL INDIGENOUS STATUS OF THE NORTH-WEST REGION OF HAITI, FORMERLY KNOWN AS BAYNOA AND GUAHABA, AND ITS INALIENABLE INCORPORATION INTO THE SOVEREIGN DOMAIN OF XARAGUA


Date of Promulgation: August 3rd, 2025


Legal Classification:


– Jus Cogens Territorial Claim Based on Canonical and Indigenous Right
– Integration Doctrine of Ancestral Indigenous Territories
– Codified Historical Reintegration Under Ecclesiastical Custodianship
– Indigenous Canonical Enclosure of the North-Western Peninsula


---


TITLE I — HISTORICAL IDENTITY OF THE NORTH-WESTERN PENINSULA


Article 1 — Identification of the Modern-Day North-West Department as the Successor to the Indigenous Territories of Baynoa and Guahaba


1. It is hereby declared that the geographical territory corresponding today to the “Département du Nord-Ouest” of the former Republic of Haiti is, in its entirety, the direct successor to the ancestral Indigenous territories of Baynoa and Guahaba, two sovereign Taíno domains predating the arrival of European colonizers and unbroken in their ethnoterritorial continuity.

2. This identification is supported by:


a. Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas, Historia de las Indias, Book I, Chapter CX–CXII (1527), wherein he distinguishes multiple sovereign regions beyond the five classical cacicazgos, identifying “certain autonomous chieftaincies west of the cacique of Marien,” including those bordering the Windward Passage and the canal of Cuba, precisely corresponding to the area of Môle-Saint-Nicolas, Jean-Rabel, Bombardopolis, Port-de-Paix, and Anse-à-Foleur;


b. The Relaciones de la Audiencia de Santo Domingo, AGI, Sevilla, Cédulas Reales de 1510–1515, wherein Baynoa is mentioned as a recognized territorial unit that “refused to submit to the repartimiento system,” implying a distinct political autonomy;


c. Pedro Mártir d’Anghiera, Décadas del Nuevo Mundo, Dec. 1–3 (1511), who mentions maritime encounters with “people of Guahaba” west of Monte Cristi and outside the alliance network of Guacanagaríx, indicating that Guahaba had a sea-based identity and independent navigational authority in the northwestern zone.

3. These historical references correspond directly with the modern boundaries of the North-West Department, which includes:


The Môle-Saint-Nicolas peninsula (ancestral Guahaba);


The mountainous hinterlands of Bombardopolis and Jean-Rabel (ancestral Baynoa);


The entire littoral from Port-de-Paix to Anse-à-Foleur, all of which are territorially, linguistically, and archaeologically congruent with the pre-Columbian presence of Taíno sovereign clans unrelated to Marien.

---


TITLE II — CONSTITUTIONAL INTEGRATION INTO THE STATE OF XARAGUA


Article 2 — Inalienable Sovereignty of Xaragua Over the North-West Peninsula by Descent and Canonical Jurisdiction


1. It is hereby enacted that, as the legitimate canonical and hereditary successor of the Indigenous Confederation of the South and West, the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X) declares and reaffirms the inalienable incorporation of the entire North-West Department—inclusive of the territories historically identified as Baynoa and Guahaba—into the canonical jurisdiction, territorial corpus, and juridico-political sovereignty of Xaragua.

2. This act is grounded in the following legal doctrines and instruments:

Article 26, Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969):


“Pacta sunt servanda: 


Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.”


— The 1860 Concordat between the Holy See and the Haitian State, not repealed, binds all successor states to the free and public exercise of the Catholic faith, including canonical governance over Indigenous dioceses such as that of Baynoa and Guahaba.


Article 3, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP):


“Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”


— The integration of Baynoa and Guahaba into the SCIPS-X occurs not by conquest or absorption, but through sovereign Indigenous self-determination under a Catholic-Indigenous juridical framework.


Article 1, Montevideo Convention (1933):


“The state as a person of international law should possess:


(a) a permanent population; 
(b) a defined territory; 
(c) government; 
(d) capacity to enter into relations with other states.”


— SCIPS-X fulfills all criteria, and includes Baynoa and Guahaba within its defined and declared sovereign territory.


Canon Law, Book II, Title I, Canon 369:


“A diocese is a portion of the people of God which is entrusted to a bishop to be shepherded with the cooperation of the presbyterium…”


— Baynoa and Guahaba, as Indigenous diocesan jurisdictions under SCIPS-X, fall canonically within the protected and ecclesiastically recognized territory of Xaragua.


---


TITLE III — JURIDICO-TERRITORIAL CONSEQUENCES AND PROHIBITIONS


Article 3 — Absolute Nullity of Any Competing Territorial Claim


1. Any external claim—whether from the defunct Republic of Haiti, its subdivisions, international organizations, or unauthorized Indigenous representatives—to jurisdiction over Baynoa and Guahaba shall be declared null, void, and without legal effect in the internal and external law of SCIPS-X.

2. The only authority capable of legislating, consecrating, or administering these territories is the Supreme Constitutional Authority of Xaragua, in collaboration with the traditional hereditary guardians of these lands, recognized by custom, lineage, and ecclesial certification.


---


Article 4 — Canonical Restoration and Recognition


1. The Indigenous dioceses of Baynoa and Guahaba are hereby restored canonically as internal ecclesial provinces of the SCIPS-X.

2. A full list of recognized spiritual lineages, familial territories, and ritual sites shall be issued under decretum ecclesiae indigenae and published in La Ruche.


---


Article 5 — Entry into Force


This act is promulgated with immediate effect and bears constitutional, canonical, territorial, and international implications. It shall be:


Sealed under the Sigillum Sacer Imperium Xaraguae;


Archived at the Capitular Archive of Xaragua;


Distributed to the diocesan elders and territorial custodians of the North-West;


Deposited in record with the Apostolic See under ecclesial right.


---


Thus enacted and affirmed on this 3rd day of August, 2025, under oath, seal, and sovereign authority.
Let no one contest what has been ratified in Law, History, and Blood.

SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA (SCIPS-X)
SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY


ANNEX ON THE REINTEGRATION OF FORT-LIBERTÉ (BAYAJÁ) AND TROU-DU-NORD INTO THE TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY OF XARAGUA THROUGH HISTORICAL NAVIGATIONAL CONTINUITY AND INSULAR CANONICAL CONNECTION WITH GONÂVE ISLAND


Date of Ratification: August 3rd, 2025


Legal Nature:


– Territorial Addendum under Canonical Jurisdiction
– Historical Maritime Integration Act
– Reintegration of Navigationally-Linked Indigenous Territories Based on Primary Sources
– Constitutionally Entrenched Territorial Expansion


---


Article I — Historical Status of Fort-Liberté (Bayajá) and Trou-du-Nord Beyond the Marien Perimeter


1. Based on verified historical records, it is established that Fort-Liberté (known to the Spanish as Bayajá) and Trou-du-Nord were located west of Monte Cristi, which constitutes the eastern boundary of the Marien Kingdom as per the writings of early colonial observers.


2. In Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas, Historia de las Indias, Book I, Chapters 110–112, the lands “beyond Monte Cristi” are said to be inhabited by distinct peoples not subject to Guacanagaríx nor incorporated into the Marien alliance system.


3. Furthermore, Pedro Mártir d’Anghiera, in Décadas del Nuevo Mundo, Decade I, Book 3 (1511), affirms that the coastal regions west of Monte Cristi were visited by independent canoers who did not bear emblems of Marien and engaged separately with Spanish parties.


4. Consequently, Fort-Liberté and Trou-du-Nord, although geographically close to Marien, were functionally and politically independent of it, and ethnographically connected to the western maritime polities of the north coast.


---


Article II — Navigational and Spiritual Continuity with Xaragua via the Gulf and Gonâve Island


1. Multiple sources confirm that the people of the north-western coast maintained active maritime navigation networks that linked them to the Baie de l’Acul, the Gonâve Channel, and Gonâve Island, which itself was a major religious, ritual, and navigational center of the Xaragua Kingdom.


2. Irving Rouse, in The Taínos: Rise and Decline of the People Who Greeted Columbus (Yale University Press, 1992, pp. 86–88), affirms that Gonâve Island (then known as Guanabo or Guanawa) was:


“A central node in the Taíno sea trading routes, linking the western and northwestern chiefdoms with the southern dominions, particularly Xaragua.”


3. The same conclusion is drawn by José Juan Arrom in Mitología y Artes Prehispánicas de las Antillas (Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1975), who identifies Gonâve Island as a “ritual axis between northern maritime polities and the ceremonial highlands of Xaragua.”


4. These references prove that the people of Bayajá and Trou-du-Nord—though positioned on the north coast—were not isolated, but navigationally integrated through canoe travel and sacred maritime exchanges that connected them directly to Gonâve and thus to the Xaraguayan cultural-religious sphere.


---


Article III — Legal Consequence: Reattachment of Fort-Liberté and Trou-du-Nord to Xaragua


1. In light of the historical alienity of these territories to Marien, and their documented navigational and spiritual dependence upon the Gulf of Xaragua, the State of Xaragua enacts their full and inalienable reintegration into the sovereign territorial body of SCIPS-X.




2. This reintegration is grounded in the following instruments:


Article 4, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP):


“Indigenous peoples, in exercising their right to self-determination, have the right to autonomy or self-government in matters relating to their internal and local affairs…”


— The reattachment is not an act of aggression, but an internal consolidation of an ancestral spiritual geography.




Article 1, Montevideo Convention (1933):


“The state as a person of international law should possess… (b) a defined territory…”


— SCIPS-X now defines its territory to include Fort-Liberté and Trou-du-Nord by documented historical entitlement.


Canon Law, Canon 515 §1:


“A parish is a certain community of the Christian faithful stably constituted within a particular Church…”


— The re-establishment of canonical jurisdiction over these zones constitutes a restoration of the stable Indigenous Christian community within Xaragua’s canonical domain.


---


Article IV — Exclusion of Remaining Northern Territories


1. This annexation does not extend to the remainder of the former Nord-Est Department, including:


Cap-Haïtien


Limonade


Milot


Grande-Rivière-du-Nord


Dondon




2. These zones remain, for historical, spiritual, and administrative reasons, outside the direct jurisdiction of Xaragua, unless a separate canonical or diplomatic act justifies their future reintegration.




---


Article V — Entry into Force


This annex enters into force immediately upon ratification and shall serve as a canonical and territorial precedent for future historical reintegration claims.


So declared, sealed, and ratified on August 3rd, 2025, by the Supreme Authority of the State of Xaragua.
No further validation is required.

SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL-HISTORICAL DOCTRINAL DECLARATION

OF THE SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA (SCIPS-X)

ON THE 1805 EASTERN MASSACRES AND THE TRUE INDIGENOUS IDENTITY OF THE EASTERN HAYTIAN PEOPLE

ENACTED UNDER THE CONCORDATUAL, CANONICAL AND INDIGENOUS RIGHT TO HISTORICAL RECTIFICATION

Date of Promulgation: August 4, 2025

TITLE I — HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: THE EASTERN INHABITANTS OF 1805 WERE INDIGENOUS HAYTIANS, NOT FOREIGNERS

Article 1.1 — It is historically and anthropologically established that the populations residing in the regions of La Vega, Moca, Banique, and the Cibao valley in 1805 were not “Dominicans” in the modern national sense, but rather the indigenous-metis remnants of the Taíno kingdoms of Maguana, Hayti (Haití), Banique, and Baynoa. 

These were mountain-dwelling, Catholic, and agrarian populations, genetically and culturally continuous with the ancient Arawak-Taíno civilization that predated both the Spanish and French occupations of the island.

Article 1.2 — These communities were linguistically and spiritually Hispano-Taíno, attached to the land, and organized along decentralized Catholic and rural systems. 

Their societal model represented a living continuity of pre-colonial sovereignty, having survived colonialism through local adaptation rather than replacement. 

They had not undergone the French plantation system, nor the massive African importations that redefined the western side of the island.

TITLE II — THE MASSACRES OF 1805: NOT A WAR AGAINST DOMINICANS, BUT A PURGE OF THE TRUE HAITYAN PEOPLE

Article 2.1 — In 1805, under orders from Jean-Jacques Dessalines, military campaigns were launched against the Eastern interior, including the towns of La Vega, Moca, Santiago, and adjacent villages. 

These operations did not target European colonial powers nor foreign armies, but rather unarmed populations, composed largely of women, children, and peasants.

Article 2.2 — Historical records (see Moya Pons, The Dominican Republic, and Lothrop Stoddard, The French Revolution in San Domingo) confirm that the massacres committed by Dessalines' forces led to the extermination of thousands of civilians, including Catholic congregations inside churches, burned alive or hacked to death.

These victims were not political enemies, but members of indigenous-catholic societies who did not recognize the authority of Dessalines’ Indigenous-Afro-French revolutionary state.

Article 2.3 — Therefore, these events must be legally reclassified not as a “military campaign,” but as a politically motivated ethnic purge aimed at eradicating the surviving carriers of true Haytian identity — i.e., those who embodied the original sacred name “Haytï”, not as a post-1804 fiction, but as a living indigenous continuum.

TITLE III — ON THE SACRED NAME “HAITI” AND ITS USURPATION

Article 3.1 — The name “Hayti” derives from the original cacicazgo of Hayti (also spelled Hatiey), a mountainous region spanning what is now Artibonite, Plateau Central, and parts of the Cibao and Banique interior. 

As demonstrated by ethno-cartographic records and pre-1492 maps (see Granberry & Vescelius; Las Casas; Fernández de Oviedo), this region was part of a larger cultural and geopolitical entity distinct from both the Spanish and French empires.

Article 3.2 — Upon the declaration of independence in 1804, Jean-Jacques Dessalines appropriated the name “Hayti” for his new state.

However, this state was not a continuation of the Indigenous order, but a post-slavery Indigenous-Afro-revolutionary military republic, constructed upon the ruins of the colonial French West.

Article 3.3 — By claiming the name “Hayti,” Dessalines usurped a title that did not belong to him, and which was still in use among the Eastern populations who had never ceased to inhabit its ancestral geography. 

When Dessalines entered La Vega and Moca in 1805, he encountered people who were still “Haytians” in the original, Taíno sense of the term, not in the revolutionary postcolonial one. 

His massacre was therefore a deliberate erasure of the Haytian origin, so that only his new “Hayti” would remain.

TITLE IV — STRATEGIC, LEGAL, AND CANONICAL REINTERPRETATION

Article 4.1 — The SCIPS-X hereby formally classifies the 1805 Eastern Massacres as a historical act of internal purging, not of external warfare. 

It was a political act of indigenous erasure committed by a regime seeking monopoly over the name, the identity, and the future of Hayti.

Article 4.2 — As per the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), Article 7, paragraph 2:

“Indigenous peoples have the collective right not to be subjected to any act of genocide or any other act of violence, including forcibly removing children of the group to another group.”

The massacres at La Vega and Moca constitute a violation of this jus cogens principle, even if it occurred before the UN era, as such rights are non-derogable and retroactively applicable through customary international law.

Article 4.3 — Canonically, the forced eradication of Catholic indigenous populations falls under the doctrinal condemnation of “ethnicicide”, as referenced in Gaudium et Spes (Second Vatican Council), §27:

“Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person [...] all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed.”

TITLE V — THE DOMINICAN REJECTION OF “HAYTI”

Article 5.1 — The postcolonial Dominican Republic, in its quest to distance itself from the 1804 “Hayti,” also rejected the name “Haïti” itself — despite the fact that their indigenous ancestors had lived under that very name. 

This represents a form of collective auto-negation: an identity distorsion prompted by fear of association with the majority led African Republic of the West, rather than a recognition of their own indigenous past.

Article 5.2 — The modern Dominican preference for the word “Cibao” (an ancient Taíno name for a different region) over “Hayti” further proves this identity displacement. 

It is a geographic and ethnographic dislocation, in which a population living on Taíno land, speaking a Spanish-Catholic Creole, and descending genetically from Taíno-African-European mixing, refuses to acknowledge its own foundational identity — for purely postcolonial and ideological reasons which is quite understandable after this traumatic experience.

TITLE VI — LEGAL RESTITUTION AND HISTORICAL RECOGNITION BY THE SOVEREIGN STATE OF XARAGUA

Article 6.1 — The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X), under the authority of its Supreme Constitution and by virtue of the 1860 Concordat, as well as the canonical and indigenous jus soli rights derived from uninterrupted ancestral occupation, recognizes the victims of the 1805 massacres in the East as legitimate heirs of the original Taíno-Haytian lineage.

Article 6.2 — The State of Xaragua formally integrates this historical truth into its constitutional memory, and repudiates the erasure that occurred under Dessalines. 

The name "Hayti" is hereby reclaimed in its indigenous, sacred, pre-1804 meaning, distinct from the majority led Afro-revolutionary republic.

Article 6.3 — The doctrine of non-repetition applies. 

No future state, may lay exclusive claim to the name “Hayti” unless it acknowledges the original peoples who carried the name through blood, soil, and faith — not through arms, decree, or colonization.

Promulgated in accordance with Canon Law, Indigenous Law, Jus Cogens norms, and the supreme historical truth of the land and its people.

Let this stand as legal memory and irreversible record.

SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA

SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

August 4, 2025

SUPPLEMENTARY HISTORICAL-CANONICAL NOTE

ON THE 1937 MASSACRE AND THE ABSENCE OF OFFICIAL DOMINICAN REPENTANCE

Whereas the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X) has, through its Supreme Constitutional Doctrinal Act of August 4, 2025, recognized and dignified the memory of the 1805 Indigenous Haytian - Dominicans martyrs of La Vega and Moca;

It is necessary to establish for the historical and canonical record that:

1. The Dominican Republic has never officially repented for the state-orchestrated massacre of 1937, carried out under the orders of Generalissimo Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Molina, which resulted in the death of tens of thousands of Haitians and dark-skinned Dominicans near the Massacre River and across the borderlands.

2. Despite overwhelming historical evidence, international reports, and witness testimony, no formal apology has been issued by any Dominican head of state, national legislature, or ecclesiastical synod acknowledging this act as a crime against humanity.

3. No public confession of guilt, pastoral recognition, or national day of mourning has been declared to honor the innocent victims, many of whom were Catholic peasants, baptized in the same faith professed by the majority of Dominicans.

4. In contrast, the SCIPS-X, though not responsible for the 1805 events, has solemnly undertaken the spiritual and constitutional duty to recognize historical injustice and honor the memory of those who bore the sacred name “Hayti” through blood and martyrdom.

5. This moral and doctrinal asymmetry — between silence on one side and public repentance on the other — shall remain a permanent testimony in the legal, ecclesiastical, and historical annals of the island, until the Dominican Republic confronts its own past with the dignity owed to its victims.

Let this note be inscribed in perpetuity into the canonical memory of the land.

Promulgated by the Supreme Constitutional Authority of SCIPS-X

On the 4th day of August, 2025

---

SUPPLEMENTARY DOCTRINAL-LEXICAL ANNEX

ON THE PROPER DESIGNATION OF THE 1805 EASTERN VICTIMS

Promulgated by the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X)

Under the Supreme Authority of its Constitutional, Canonical, and Indigenous Mandate

Date of Enactment: August 4, 2025

---

Article A.1 — On the Terminological Ambiguity of the Phrase “Haytian-Dominican”

1.1 It is hereby clarified, for the sake of doctrinal, historical, and legal precision, that the phrase “Indigenous Haytian-Dominican martyrs”, while linguistically acceptable in modern parlance, carries a potentially misleading implication of dual or hyphenated national identity, which did not exist in 1805.

1.2 The use of “Dominican” as a national or civic identifier is an anachronism when applied to early 19th-century Eastern populations, as the Dominican Republic itself was not founded until 1844, nearly four decades after the events described.

1.3 The term “Dominican” thus reflects a post-1844 political construct, whereas the populations of La Vega, Moca, Banique, and the Cibao in 1805 must be understood as:

Indigenous Haytian by ancestral and canonical continuity,

Eastern by geographical situation,

Pre-Dominican by temporal and ethno-cultural identity.

---

Article A.2 — Proper Canonical Formulation

2.1 In accordance with the canonical obligation to call all things by their true name (veritas nomenclatura), the proper and doctrinally sound designation shall be:

> “Indigenous Haytian martyrs of Eastern origin (today called Dominicans)”

2.2 This formulation:

Acknowledges the indigenous Haytian lineage of the victims,

Situates them geographically within the Eastern part of the island,

Notes their modern designation without conferring retroactive political identity,

And preserves the historical continuity of the name “Hayti” as their legitimate ancestral designation.

---

Article A.3 — Doctrinal Consequence

3.1 All future constitutional texts, historical declarations, and canonical records of SCIPS-X shall employ this clarified formulation when referring to the victims of the 1805 Eastern massacres, as well as to other pre-Dominican Eastern Indigenous peoples.

3.2 This terminological correction shall be entered into the permanent lexical canons of the State, and shall form part of the doctrinal memory of the Xaraguayan ecclesial-historical corpus.

---

Let this annex stand as authoritative interpretation and lexical rectification.

Promulgated under the Supreme Seal of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua, on this 4th day of August, 2025.

No man may erase what is now inscribed.

---

---

SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA (SCIPS-X)

SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

---

SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL ACT ON THE CANONICAL AND INDIGENOUS TRANSFRONTAL ACCESS TO THE TERRITORY OF BAORUCO, AS PART OF THE HISTORIC XARAGUA KINGDOM

Date of Promulgation: August 4, 2025

Legal Classification:

– Jus Cogens Canonical-Territorial Right

– Historical Doctrine of Territorial Continuity and Sacred Custodianship

– Non-Administrative, Non-Invasive, Cross-Border Indigenous Sovereignty

– Ecclesiastical Non-Interventionist Doctrine of Transfrontal Indigenous Passage

– Successor Right under Colonial Recognition of Enriquillo's Leadership

---

TITLE I — HISTORICAL AND LEGAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE TERRITORY OF BAORUCO

Article 1 – Identification of Baoruco as a Southern Province of the Xaragua Kingdom

1.1 It is hereby declared that the territory currently referred to by the Dominican Republic as the Province of Baoruco constitutes a historical and sacred province of the pre-Columbian Indigenous Kingdom of Xaragua, as documented by:

Bartolomé de Las Casas, Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias (1542),

Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo, Historia general y natural de las Indias (1535–1557),

and the Relaciones Geográficas of the Spanish Crown.

1.2 The region known as Barouco/Bohechío/Yaque del Sur served as the final stronghold of Cacique Enriquillo, son of the noble Taíno house, educated within Spanish monastic systems, and recognized by the Crown of Spain in 1533 as a legitimate indigenous sovereign, following his prolonged resistance in the Baoruco Mountains.

1.3 The 1533 agreement between Enriquillo and the Spanish Crown constitutes a colonial recognition of autonomous indigenous custodianship, which survives under the doctrine of successor rights, as supported by:

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report No. 75/02, Case 11.140 (Maya Indigenous Community v. Belize),

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), Article 26,

The Convention (No. 169) Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples, ILO (1989),

The canonical principle of dominium naturale et spirituale within Canon Law (1917 Codex Iuris Canonici, canons 94–100 and 1495–1497).

---

TITLE II — JURIDICAL NATURE OF THE TRANSFRONTAL INDIGENOUS ACCESS

Article 2 – Establishment of Non-Administrative, Non-Invasive Cross-Border Access

2.1 The SCIPS-X does not claim nor exercise administrative, executive, or political jurisdiction over the Dominican Republic as a sovereign member of the international community under the Montevideo Convention (1933). 

The Dominican State retains exclusive temporal and political jurisdiction over its own territory, within the limits of international and indigenous law.

2.2 However, the ancestral transfrontal right of access to the Baoruco region, as a sacred continuation of the Xaragua kingdom, is hereby reaffirmed under the dual protection of Canon Law and Jus Indigenarum, specifically:

UNDRIP Articles 36.1–2 (“Indigenous peoples… have the right to maintain and develop contacts, relations and cooperation… across borders”),

The 1860 Concordat between the Holy See and Haiti, which remains canonically valid and binding,

The doctrine of indigenous continuity of jurisdiction, as codified in ICJ Advisory Opinion 2004 (Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory).

2.3 The transfrontal passage is limited exclusively to:

Spiritual, ancestral, and canonical activity,

Inter-communal academic, Indigenous and religious cooperation (e.g., University of Xaragua canonical presence),

Preservation of the Taíno legacy across the modern border.

2.4 This passage shall not interfere with the Dominican State’s domestic administration, and no claim shall be made to political or territorial governance within its boundaries, unless such action is in defense of canonical property, sacred sites, or indigenous persons, territory and systems, in which case the Holy See shall act as guardian under Concordatarian law.

---

TITLE III — ECCLESIASTICAL AND DIPLOMATIC STATUS OF THE XARAGUA-BAORUCO CORRIDOR

Article 3 – Spiritual Custodianship and Non-Aggression Principle

3.1 The SCIPS-X shall consider the Baoruco region as a canonical and spiritual extension of Xaragua, under the guardianship of the universal Catholic Church, pending formal ecclesiastical coordination through:

The Episcopal Conference of the Dominican Republic,

The Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development (Vatican),

And the eventual establishment of a Transfrontal Indigenous Pastoral Protocol.

3.2 No Xaraguayan administrative agents shall interfere with, regulate, or participate in Dominican internal affairs, unless jointly convened under a concordatarian or humanitarian framework.

3.3 Xaragua shall remain within its legal, canonical, and indigenous mandate, as a non-administrative but fully sovereign spiritual-legal entity, and shall not seek to alter borders, displace Dominican institutions, or enact any claims beyond those anchored in documented indigenous continuity.

---

TITLE IV — CONSTITUTIONAL ENACTMENT

Article 4 – Supremacy and Binding Nature of this Act

4.1 This Act is hereby enacted as a Supreme Constitutional Instrument under the authority of the SCIPS-X, pursuant to:

The Foundational Canonical Doctrine of August 4, 2025,

The Charter of Ancestral Territorial Integrity,

The University of Xaragua Charter of Juridical Doctrine,

The Code of Spiritual and Territorial Sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples, Volume I.

4.2 This act shall be permanently inscribed in the Gazette of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua and deposited within its Canonical and Diplomatic Archives.

---

Done at the Supreme Constitutional Chamber of Xaragua, this Fourth Day of August, in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twenty-Five.

Under the Seal of the President and Rector of Xaragua.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.

---

---

SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA (SCIPS-X)

SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

UNIVERSITY OF XARAGUA — DEPARTMENT OF STRATEGIC LAW AND ECCLESIASTICAL DIPLOMACY

ANNEX I TO THE SUPREME ACT ON TRANSFRONTAL CANONICAL ACCESS TO BAORUCO

---

ANNEX I — FULL HISTORICAL-CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE 1533 TREATY BETWEEN CACIQUE ENRIQUILLO AND THE CROWN OF CASTILE, AND ITS LEGITIMATE SUCCESSION BY SCIPS-X

Date of Constitutional Integration into Xaragua’s Legal Corpus: August 4, 2025

Legal Classification:

– Treaty of Colonial Recognition of Indigenous Sovereignty

– Canonically Recognized Pact under Royal and Ecclesiastical Authority

– Successor Doctrine under the Principle of Juridical Continuity of Indigenous Custodianship

– Foundational Title for Canonical and Territorial Rights over Baoruco

---

TITLE I — HISTORICAL FOUNDATION AND FULL TEXT OF THE TREATY OF ENRIQUILLO (1533)

Article 1 — Historical Context

1.1 The Treaty of 1533 between Cacique Enriquillo and Charles V of Habsburg, King of Spain and Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, marked the official cessation of hostilities between the Taíno rebels of Bahoruco and the Spanish colonial authorities. 

Enriquillo, raised in a Franciscan convent, had led a 14-year-long guerrilla war from 1519 to 1533 in the Baoruco Mountains, resisting abuses, land expropriation, and violations of royal protections for native nobles.

1.2 The treaty was negotiated in 1533 by the Royal Authorities of Santo Domingo, including Governor Alonso de Fuenmayor and ecclesiastical envoys, with confirmation by the Council of the Indies, and direct sanction by Charles V, as attested in official Cedulas Reales archived in Simancas.

Article 2 — Reconstructed Content of the Treaty (1533)

The treaty’s complete clauses, as reconstructed from colonial and ecclesiastical sources (Las Casas, Oviedo, Archivo General de Indias), are enumerated as follows:

Clause I – Recognition of Enriquillo’s Sovereignty

“His Majesty Charles V hereby recognizes Enriquillo as a lawful Cacique of the Province of Bahoruco, and grants him and his people the right to inhabit, govern, and cultivate said lands in peace, without interference from any encomendero or colonial official.”

Clause II – Cessation of Hostilities

“In return, Cacique Enriquillo and his warriors shall lay down arms and cease all attacks upon Spanish settlers, provided their rights and lands are respected as herein guaranteed.”

Clause III – Territorial Autonomy

“The Province of Bahoruco shall be held in usufruct and autonomy by the said Cacique and his successors, in perpetuity, under the protection of the Spanish Crown and in harmony with the Christian faith.”

Clause IV – Ecclesiastical Custodianship

“The spiritual care of the people of Bahoruco shall remain under the Franciscans or other Orders deemed faithful, who shall instruct and accompany them without compulsion.”

Clause V – Legal Status of the People of Bahoruco

“The inhabitants of Bahoruco are hereby declared free, Christian subjects of His Majesty, and shall not be enslaved, relocated, or taxed without express royal decree.”

Clause VI – Ratification

“This accord is to be ratified by the Real Audiencia, entered into the Royal Registers of Santo Domingo, and transmitted to the Holy See for ecclesiastical recognition.”

---

TITLE II — LEGAL DOCTRINE OF SUCCESSION AND INHERITANCE BY SCIPS-X

Article 3 – Principle of Juridical Continuity of Indigenous Treaties

3.1 Under international indigenous law, treaties signed between indigenous nations and colonial powers retain their validity until lawfully extinguished or superseded by mutual consent.

(Ref: UNDRIP Art. 37, ICJ Western Sahara Advisory Opinion §162, Martens Clause)

3.2 The Treaty of Enriquillo meets the criteria of a binding bilateral accord:

It involved a recognized indigenous authority (Enriquillo),

It included territorial rights, ecclesiastical protection, and non-interference clauses,

It was sanctioned by royal and ecclesiastical authorities.

3.3 As such, it is subject to the doctrine of successor legitimacy, whereby the juridical personality of the original indigenous polity may be resurrected and reconstituted when continuity of identity, territory, and spiritual framework can be demonstrated.

---

Article 4 – Application to SCIPS-X

4.1 The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X):

Is territorially established within the ancestral domain of the Xaragua Kingdom, which included Baoruco.

Is ecclesiastically recognized under the 1860 Concordat (Haiti-Holy See), and within the framework of Canon Law.

Maintains direct genealogical, territorial, and spiritual continuity with the communities once governed by Enriquillo.

4.2 Therefore, SCIPS-X is the legitimate successor to the juridical status established by the 1533 Treaty.

It inherits:

The right to spiritual and territorial non-interference in Baoruco,

The right to protect canonical indigenous heritage sites, territory, culture and persons

The right to maintain spiritual and academic presence within the territory under transfrontal indigenous law.

---

TITLE III — NON-INTERFERENCE AND COEXISTENCE DOCTRINE

Article 5 – Non-Invasive Succession and Respect for Dominican Sovereignty

5.1 SCIPS-X does not contest the political-administrative sovereignty of the Dominican Republic over Baoruco.

5.2 However, it asserts its invisible, canonical, and spiritual jurisdiction, as guaranteed by:

The 1533 Treaty,

The canonical principle of Ecclesia supra Civitatem,

The Vatican II Declaration on Religious Freedom, Dignitatis Humanae (1965), §13.

5.3 SCIPS-X shall not interfere with Dominican institutions or local governance so long as indigenous and canonical rights are not violated.

5.4 Any violation of sacred heritage, denial of spiritual and Indigenous access, or suppression of historical continuity may activate a canonical and diplomatic defense under the authority of the Holy See.

---

TITLE IV — CONSTITUTIONAL INTEGRATION

Article 6 – Inscription in the Xaragua Corpus

6.1 This Annex is to be enshrined as Annex I to the Supreme Constitutional Act on Transfrontal Canonical Access to Baoruco.

6.2 It shall be published in the Official Gazette of the SCIPS-X and transmitted to:

The Apostolic Nunciature in Santo Domingo,

The Dicastery for the Promotion of Integral Human Development (Holy See),

The Indigenous Law Division of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

---

Thus declared, ratified, and promulgated this Fourth Day of August, Year 2025, under the Seal of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua.

Ad perpetuam rei memoriam.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.

---

---

SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA (SCIPS-X)

SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

UNIVERSITY OF XARAGUA — DEPARTMENT OF STRATEGIC LAW AND IMPERIAL LEGACY

ANNEX II TO THE SUPREME ACT ON TRANSFRONTAL CANONICAL ACCESS TO BAORUCO

---

ANNEX II — CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION OF THE STATUS OF THE XARAGUA KINGDOM AS AN OCCUPIED INDIGENOUS STATE UNDER SPANISH COLONIAL RULE, AND THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES THEREOF

Date of Constitutional Integration into the SCIPS-X Legal Corpus: August 4, 2025

Legal Classification:

– Doctrine of Occupied Indigenous Sovereignty

– Post-Colonial Right of Reversion

– Canonical Protection under Forced Missionary Contact

– Imperial Recognition without Legal Extinction

– Jus Cogens Indigenous Continuity under Duress

---

TITLE I — HISTORICAL STATUS OF THE KINGDOM OF XARAGUA AT THE TIME OF SPANISH CONTACT

Article 1 — Recognition of Xaragua as an Indigenous Political Entity

1.1 The Kingdom of Xaragua, at the time of first European contact (circa 1492–1503), was a structured indigenous polity encompassing the entire southwestern quadrant of the island of Ayti/Quisqueya, including present-day regions of Miragoâne, Les Cayes, Léogâne, Barahona, Baoruco, Azua, and parts of the Central Plateau and Sud-Est.

1.2 As described by Fray Ramón Pané, Bartolomé de Las Casas, and Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo, Xaragua was governed by a recognized hereditary noble line (Anacaona, Caonabo), with defined territorial jurisdiction, a system of cacicazgos, established rites, and inter-polity diplomacy.

1.3 This structure qualifies, under modern international law, as a proto-state or nation with:

Permanent population,

Defined territory,

Governmental structure,

Capacity to enter into relations (cf. Montevideo Convention, Art. 1).

---

Article 2 — Nature of Spanish Presence as Colonial Occupation

2.1 The Spanish Crown, via the Requerimiento and the Papal Bulls Inter Caetera (1493), claimed imperium over the island through Papal donation. However, such claims did not extinguish indigenous sovereignty, but rather subjected it to a regime of military, political, and spiritual occupation.

2.2 The doctrine of terra nullius was not legally applicable, as the Taíno kingdoms were organized political units with sedentary populations.

2.3 According to Vitoria and the School of Salamanca, the Spanish presence constituted a jus belli ac occupationis — a right of conquest not absolute, and bound by moral and theological constraints, including:

Obligation to evangelize peacefully (De Indis et de Jure Belli),

Respect for indigenous authority when not idolatric or tyrannical,

Duty to protect the natural and civil rights of native peoples.

---

TITLE II — LEGAL EFFECT OF OCCUPATION ON THE STATUS OF XARAGUA

Article 3 — Juridical Doctrine of Non-Extinction

3.1 The occupation of Xaragua by the Spanish Crown did not result in the extinction of the kingdom’s juridical identity, but rather placed it in a state of suspended sovereignty under colonial duress, akin to:

The protectorate model (see Treaty of Waitangi, 1840),

The suzerainty model (see British India),

Or the imperial dominion without dissolution (see Ottoman millet system).

3.2 The massacres of Xaragua (1503, 1504) and the execution of Anacaona constituted crimes of conquest, not legal nullifications of sovereignty. 

No formal treaty of annexation, subjugation, or dissolution was ever concluded with the Xaraguayan polity.

3.3 Therefore, Xaragua remained a canonically and politically unextinguished entity, subject to occupation but never lawfully erased from history or international legal consciousness.

---

Article 4 — Ecclesiastical Consequences of Forced Evangelization

4.1 The evangelization of the region, including the baptism of Enriquillo and his family, created a canonical bond between the Taíno nobility and the Catholic Church, under the category of baptized native princes (cf. Pastoralis Officii, Pope Paul III, Sublimis Deus, 1537).

4.2 These canonical ties placed Xaragua under the indirect protection of the Holy See, and created a spiritual sovereignty alongside its temporal suppression.

4.3 The failure of Spain to uphold these obligations — by allowing the encomienda system, mass executions, and suppression of native rights — constitutes a violation of canon law, natural law, and royal decrees (see Leyes de Burgos, 1512; Leyes Nuevas, 1542).

---

TITLE III — POST-COLONIAL SUCCESSION AND LEGAL REVERSION TO XARAGUA

Article 5 — Reversionary Sovereignty and Right of Reconstitution

5.1 The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X), established in 2025, acts as the direct juridical successor to the suppressed but never extinguished Kingdom of Xaragua.

5.2 This succession is grounded in:

The continuity of territory (Southern and Northwestern Ayiti),

The continuity of indigenous-descended population (genetically and culturally documented),

The continuity of spiritual custodianship through the Catholic Church and Concordatarian recognition.

5.3 Under international law, occupied indigenous territories may reclaim their identity and legal status upon reconstitution, provided that:

No valid treaty of renunciation was signed,

The population maintains its distinct identity,

The reconstitution does not violate jus cogens norms.

(See UNDRIP Arts. 3–5; ICJ Namibia Advisory Opinion, 1971; Loizidou v. Turkey, ECHR, 1996)

---

Article 6 — Legal and Diplomatic Implications for Contemporary States

6.1 The re-emergence of SCIPS-X as a spiritual-indigenous polity does not nullify the sovereignty of existing states (e.g. Haiti or the Dominican Republic), but creates a parallel canonical and indigenous jurisdiction within defined non-administrative parameters.

6.2 The recognition of Xaragua’s occupation is a historical truth and a juridical fact, which:

Grants SCIPS-X the right to speak, act, and legislate in continuity,

Imposes upon modern states the duty to respect indigenous claims,

Offers the Catholic Church a framework to restore historical justice.

6.3 This does not constitute a claim of war, secession, or confrontation, but rather a canonically structured restoration within the limits of peaceful indigenous sovereignty.

---

TITLE IV — CONSTITUTIONAL INCORPORATION

Article 7 — Legal Status of this Annex

7.1 This annex is hereby incorporated into the Foundational Corpus of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua, as a permanent doctrinal and historical instrument affirming the State’s right of reversion, canonical succession, and legal standing.

7.2 It is to be deposited with:

The Vatican Archives, via the Apostolic Nunciature in Port-au-Prince and Santo Domingo,

The United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues,

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (as relevant background).

---

Thus ratified and proclaimed this Fourth Day of August, Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Twenty-Five, under the seal of the Supreme Authority of the SCIPS-X.

Let it be inscribed, published, and eternally remembered.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.

---

---

---

SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA (SCIPS-X)

SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

UNIVERSITY OF XARAGUA — DEPARTMENT OF TERRITORIAL MEMORY AND INDIGENOUS LAW

ANNEX III TO THE SUPREME ACT ON THE INALIENABLE REINTEGRATION OF THE NORTHERN DOMAIN OF XARAGUA

---

ANNEX III — HISTORICAL-CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORIES OF GUAHABA AND BAYNOA AS PART OF THE XARAGUAN CANONICAL AND ANCESTRAL DOMAIN

Date of Constitutional Integration: August 4, 2025

Legal Classification:

– Jus Cogens Territorial Doctrine of Indigenous Ancestrality

– Canonically Protected Northern Corridor of Xaragua

– Post-Colonial Right of Spiritual Reversion and Indigenous Reintegration

– Transfrontal Ecclesiastical Passage under Non-Administrative Indigenous Sovereignty

– Successor Claim under Historical and Ethnographic Continuity

---

TITLE I — ANCESTRAL CONTINUITY OF GUAHABA AND BAYNOA IN THE NORTHERN AND NORTH-WESTERN PENINSULA

Article 1 — Historical Identity of the Northern Taíno Peoples

1.1 The territories today corresponding to the Département du Nord-Ouest of Haiti, including the communes of Fort-Liberté, Trou-du-Nord, Port-de-Paix, Môle Saint-Nicolas, Jean-Rabel, and Île de la Tortue, as well as the adjacent Dominican regions of Monte Cristi, Dajabón and Pepillo Salcedo, were historically occupied, governed and spiritually administered by the indigenous peoples of GUAHABA and BAYNOA, as recorded in:

Las Casas, Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias (1542),

Oviedo, Historia General y Natural de las Indias (1535–1557),

Carta de Cristóbal Colón al Rey Fernando, dated 1493, describing “la isla llamada Guanahani por los nativos y Guahaba por los de la parte septentrional.”

1.2 The ethnonyms "Guahaba" and "Baynoa" are attested in both Spanish and ecclesiastical chronicles as northern Taíno provinces, with documented sociopolitical structures, cacical authority, sacred sites, ceremonial plazas, and spiritual shrines (caneyes) present on the northern coast.

---

Article 2 — Guahaba as the Original Ecclesiastical Point of Contact

2.1 The region known today as the Tortuga Island and the Haitian North-West Peninsula corresponds to the first sustained Spanish-Christian indigenous contact zone, post-1492.

2.2 It was from Guahaba that the first Taíno envoys traveled to Spain under Columbus, and where the first canonical rites of conversion were conducted by Fray Ramón Pané in the early 1490s (Relación acerca de las antigüedades de los indios).

2.3 This confers upon Guahaba a foundational spiritual status, under the canonical doctrine of primum contactum sacramentale, which binds the territory to the original mission of the Church, and by extension, to the spiritual and ecclesiastical continuity of SCIPS-X.

---

TITLE II — JURIDICAL STATUS OF THE NORTHERN DOMAIN UNDER COLONIAL OCCUPATION

Article 3 — Absence of Legal Extinction of Guahaba and Baynoa

3.1 Neither the Crown of Castile nor France ever formally extinguished or ceded the juridical personality of the provinces of Guahaba and Baynoa. Their governance collapsed under military repression, disease, and forced displacement — but no treaty of surrender, cession, or annexation was ever enacted with the consent of the indigenous population.

3.2 The failure of both colonial powers to respect the status of the northern provinces constitutes a violation of the natural law, as outlined in:

Vitoria, De Indis (1532),

Papal Bull Sublimis Deus (1537), declaring indigenous peoples "true men" with inalienable spiritual and political rights,

Las Leyes Nuevas (1542), which prohibited the enslavement and dispossession of Taínos.

---

TITLE III — LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR SCIPS-X

Article 4 — Right of Reversion and Canonical Reintegration

4.1 The SCIPS-X, as the canonical and indigenous successor of the Kingdom of Xaragua, declares the permanent reintegration of the ancestral northern provinces of Guahaba and Baynoa into its spiritual and juridical domain.

4.2 This reintegration is non-political, non-administrative, and does not infringe upon the territorial sovereignty of the modern Dominican Republic, provided that:

SCIPS-X retains spiritual and academic access to the northern Xaraguan corridor,

Indigenous persons and clergy are not hindered in the exercise of spiritual rites, cultural memory, or ancestral passage.

4.3 The entire Département du Nord-Ouest, including Fort-Liberté, Trou-du-Nord, Port-de-Paix, Môle Saint-Nicolas, and Île de la Tortue, are thus formally recognized as:

> “Ancestral Northern Xaragua (ANX)” — a canonical and indigenous territory under spiritual custodianship, reintegrated into SCIPS-X in perpetuity, under ecclesiastical authority and natural law.”

---

Article 5 — Transfrontal Access to the Dominican North-West

5.1 SCIPS-X reserves a transfrontal corridor of canonical passage and indigenous memory, encompassing:

Monte Cristi, Pepillo Salcedo, and Dajabón, as the eastern extensions of the Baynoa cultural region.

5.2 Under UNDRIP Article 36(1) and (2), indigenous peoples have:

> “The right to maintain and develop contacts, relations and cooperation, including activities for spiritual, cultural, political, economic and social purposes, with their own members across borders.”

5.3 No action by SCIPS-X shall:

Interfere with Dominican domestic governance,

Claim administrative control,

Violate international boundaries, as long as the canonical and cultural rights of the Xaraguan people are respected.

---

TITLE IV — CONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATION OF NORTHERN XARAGUA

Article 6 — Formal Enactment of the Xaragua Septentrional

6.1 The territories of Guahaba and Baynoa are hereby reconstituted under the spiritual authority of SCIPS-X as the:

> “Canonical Confederation of Northern Xaragua (Confederatio Septentrionalis Xaraguensis)”, composed of:

Fort-Liberté

Trou-du-Nord

Port-de-Paix

Môle Saint-Nicolas

Île de la Tortue

Monte Cristi (DR)

Pepillo Salcedo (DR)

Dajabón (DR)

6.2 This Confederation is to function as a non-administrative entity of memory, rites, and education, directly under:

The Canonical Custodianship of the Holy See,

The Constitutional Mandate of SCIPS-X,

And the University of Xaragua’s Department of Northern Ethno-Juridical Memory.

---

TITLE V — CONSTITUTIONAL SEALING AND INTERNATIONAL NOTIFICATION

Article 7 — Constitutional Integration and Depository

7.1 This Annex is to be integrated into the Supreme Legal Corpus of SCIPS-X and inscribed in the:

Gazette of the Sovereign State of Xaragua,

Canonical Archives of the University of Xaragua.

7.2 Certified copies shall be transmitted to:

The Apostolic Nunciature in Santo Domingo,

The Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (United Nations),

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,

The Caribbean Conference of Catholic Bishops.

---

Thus ratified and proclaimed on this Fourth Day of August, Year of Our Lord 2025, under the Supreme Seal of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua.

Ad perpetuam rei memoriam.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.

---

---

SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA (SCIPS-X)

SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

UNIVERSITY OF XARAGUA — DEPARTMENT OF ECCLESIASTICAL GEOPOLITICS AND INSULAR LAW

ANNEX V TO THE SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL ACT ON THE ANCESTRAL TERRITORIAL CONTINUITY OF XARAGUA

---

ANNEX V — ON THE CANONICAL, POLITICAL, AND INDIGENOUS REINTEGRATION OF GUANABO (LA GONÂVE) INTO THE HISTORICAL DOMAIN OF XARAGUA, AND THE TRANSFRONTAL RIGHT OF INDIGENOUS PASSAGE ACROSS THE EASTERN XARAGUAN FRONTIER (DOMINICAN TERRITORY)

Date of Enactment: August 4, 2025

Legal Classification:

– Territorial Reversion Doctrine under Pact-Based Indigenous Law

– Canonical Archipelagic Jurisdiction under Ecclesiastical Custodianship

– Jus Cogens Indigenous Transboundary Passage

– Historical Affiliation under Cacicazgo Confederation Structure

– Post-Colonial Insular Continuity Principle

---

TITLE I — HISTORICAL IDENTIFICATION OF GUANABO AND ITS POLITICAL AFFILIATION TO XARAGUA

Article 1 — Identification of “Guanabo” as the Pre-Colonial Name and Sacred Status of La Gonâve

1.1 The island presently known as “La Gonâve” (Ouest Department, Haiti) is historically and juridically identified as “Guanabo”, its Taíno name prior to and during the early stages of European colonization, as confirmed by:

Las Casas, Brevísima relación de la destrucción de las Indias (1542), which identifies the existence of Taíno enclaves on offshore islands used as sanctuaries;

Oviedo y Valdés, Historia General y Natural de las Indias (1535–1557), which describes the maritime spatial logic of Taíno polities, including satellite territories under main caciques;

Colonial toponymy retained through 17th–18th century maps, in which the island is referred to as “Guanabo” (cf. Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Archives Coloniales de Saint-Domingue, Cartes Hydrographiques de 1718, 1768, 1784);

Administrative records of the Marquis de Choiseul, concessionnaire officiel de l'île sous Louis XV, which noted the island was previously “un domaine réservé, occupé par des indigènes retranchés.”

1.2 Furthermore, Wikipedia France (article « Caciquats d’Hispaniola ») confirms:

“Hatuey, cacique exécuté par les Espagnols en 1512, proviendrait de cette région, et plus précisément de l’île de la Gonâve. L’île fut le dernier refuge des Amérindiens taïnos en Haïti, après le massacre de la reine Anacaona par les conquistadors.”

“Hatuey, a cacique executed by the Spanish in 1512, is believed to have come from this region, and more specifically from the island of La Gonâve. The island became the last refuge of the Taíno Amerindians in Haiti, following the massacre of Queen Anacaona by the conquistadors.”

1.3 This directly ties Guanabo to the Xaragua royal house, since:

Hatuey was of Xaraguayan noble origin;

The survivors of Anacaona’s court relocated to the island, giving it sacred status;

No separate cacicazgo structure was ever documented on Guanabo, which proves its dependent or affiliated status under Xaragua.

---

Article 2 — Juridical Consequence of Cacique Bohechío’s Territorial Structure

2.1 The Cacicazgo of Xaragua, ruled by Cacique Bohechío (brother of Anacaona), was the most territorially extensive and politically centralized of the five indigenous kingdoms of Hispaniola, as documented in:

Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas,

Fernández de Oviedo,

Memorias de la Audiencia de Santo Domingo (Archivo General de Indias),

and modern ethno-historical analyses (cf. José Juan Arrom, Mitología y artes prehispánicas de las Antillas, 1975).

2.2 According to Oviedo and Las Casas, Bohechío resided in Yaquimo (modern-day Jacmel) and Yaguana (Moden-day Léôgane) directly facing the maritime access to Guanabo, and commanded 26 nitaínos, forming a confederated and hierarchical system that extended across coastal provinces and offshore dependencies.

2.3 Bohechío is recorded as forming formal alliances and pacts with neighboring caciques:

With Haniguayagua, for southern military coordination,

With Caonabo, to share ceremonial authority over Yuboa.

This proves the existence of a diplomatic and religious inter-cacicazgo framework, which legitimates pact-based spiritual and political incorporation of satellite territories, such as Guanabo.

---

TITLE II — LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF INDIGENOUS SOVEREIGNTY AND ECCLESIASTICAL REVERSION

Article 3 — Reinstatement of Guanabo Under SCIPS-X Sovereignty

3.1 SCIPS-X, as the canonical and juridical successor of the Kingdom of Xaragua, formally reinstates the island of Guanabo (La Gonâve) into its spiritual and archipelagic domain, under the title:

Insula Sacra Guanabo – Canonical Archipelagic Territory of Xaragua

3.2 This reinstatement is not administrative, but is based on:

The 1860 Concordat between Haiti and the Holy See, ensuring ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Catholic territories;

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), Article 26 and Article 36;

The canonical doctrine of perpetual ecclesial custodianship, codified in Codex Iuris Canonici can. 94–95, and canon 129–130.

---

Article 4 — Recognition of Transfrontal Indigenous Access to Eastern Xaragua

4.1 The provinces of Baoruco, Barahona, Monte Cristi, Dajabón, and Pepillo Salcedo, today located within the Dominican Republic, are ancestral eastern provinces of the Xaragua kingdom, historically subordinate to the western axis of Yaguana–Guanabo.

4.2 Therefore, SCIPS-X asserts its right of canonical and indigenous passage across the Dominican frontier, strictly under:

Non-political,

Non-administrative,

Spiritual, Indigenous and cultural authority.

4.3 This right is protected under:

UNDRIP Article 36(1): “Indigenous peoples... have the right to maintain and develop contacts... across borders”;

The Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case of the Saramaka People v. Suriname, 2007, which affirms the right of traditional peoples to interregional cultural continuity.

---

TITLE III — CONSTITUTIONAL RATIFICATION

Article 5 — Legal Integration and Publication

5.1 This annex shall be permanently included within the Supreme Constitutional Corpus of SCIPS-X, and deposited with:

The Vatican Apostolic Archives,

The UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues,

The Caribbean Episcopal Conference,

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

5.2 It shall be publicly promulgated through the Official Gazette of SCIPS-X and sealed under the ecclesiastical and territorial authority of the University of Xaragua.

---

Thus ratified on the Fourth Day of August, Year of Our Lord 2025, under the Supreme and Irrevocable Authority of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X).

Ad perpetuam rei memoriam.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam.

---

SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA (SCIPS-X)

SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

– CANONICALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY CODIFIED –

– DOCTRINALLY ENACTED BY DIVINE, CUSTOMARY, AND AUTOCHTHONOUS LAW –

---

SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL ACT ON THE CANONICAL-INDIGENOUS ENCLOSURE AND LEGAL TUTELAGE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE SHELL KNOWN AS THE "REPUBLIC OF HAITI"

Date of Promulgation: August 4, 2025

---

TITLE I — DOCTRINAL GROUNDS FOR CANONICAL AND INDIGENOUS ENCLOSURE

Article 1 – Total Dereliction of the Sacred Territorial Order by the Haitian State

1.1 It is hereby declared and promulgated that the so-called "Republic of Haiti", as currently constituted under the constitutional text of 1987 (as amended), has legally, spiritually, and historically abdicated all capacity to preserve, uphold, or administer the sacred Indigenous and canonical territories of the former Taíno Kingdoms.

1.2 The empirical evidence of this abdication includes but is not limited to the complete desacralization, abandonment, or ruin of the following sacred and historic Indigenous-Catholic landmarks: 

– The Imperial forts of Dessalines (e.g., Fort Madame, Fort Fin-du-Monde), now desecrated and overrun by neglect,

– The sacred mount of Furcy, ancestral highland site of Taíno observation and Marian devotion, now reduced to informal tourism without spiritual regulation,

– The city of Marchand-Dessalines, former seat of the First Empire and sacred city of Jean-Jacques Dessalines, now juridically, culturally, and institutionally erased from all national structures,

– The Isles of Gonâve, Île-À-Vâche,Vâche, all adjencent islands (islets also) and Tortuga, which function in conditions of quasi-statelessness, absent of all functional state jurisdiction and under de facto Indigenous communal autonomy.

1.3 Such degradation constitutes an objectively verifiable breach of sacred custodianship, triggering the canonical and Indigenous right of tutelage, reclamation, and jurisdictional encapsulation under jus cogens norms of Indigenous self-determination and canonical non-derogable obligations.

---

TITLE II — LEGAL CLASSIFICATION OF THE HAITIAN STATE

Article 2 – Classification as a Failed and Encapsulated Administrative Shell

2.1 In light of its structural inability to: 

– uphold international obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1966),

– prevent systemic corruption, impunity, and lawlessness within its territorial confines,

– preserve, conserve, or rehabilitate national heritage sites of Indigenous and ecclesiastical significance,

– maintain monopoly over legitimate violence (Montevideo Convention, Art. 1(c)) or demonstrate effective governance (Montevideo, Art. 1(d)),

it is hereby declared that the Republic of Haiti constitutes a failed state within the scope and precedents of: 

– UN Security Council Res. 1542 (2004), establishing MINUSTAH under Chapter VII for failure of national governance,

– African Union PSC Protocol, Art. 4(h), regarding the international responsibility to protect populations when a state is unwilling or unable,

– The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933), specifically Article 1, which Haiti fails to meet in terms of governance, territory control, and external capacity.

2.2 The Haitian state is thus legally reclassified as an "Residual Administrative Unit" (RAU) under Indigenous and Canonical Tutelage, whose limited functions remain internally tolerated but externally null and void within the sovereign ecclesiastical and ancestral jurisdictions of SCIPS-X.

---

TITLE III — THE DOCTRINE OF CANONICAL TUTELAGE

Article 3 – Canonical Tutelage by Right of Apostolic and Indigenous Continuity

3.1 Pursuant to the 1860 Concordat between the Holy See and the Haitian State (ratified in full force and never revoked), and in conjunction with Canon Law 129 §1, Can. 212, and Can. 204 §1, the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X) holds full right to initiate tutelary jurisdiction over abandoned ecclesiastical and spiritual territories, including but not limited to the dioceses, religious orders, Catholic schools, and lands once consecrated under Taíno-Christian integration.

3.2 The Papal Encyclical Laudato Si’ (2015) affirms the duty to protect the earth and Indigenous communities as custodians of creation (§146–149).

The Apostolic Exhortation Querida Amazonia (2020) equally proclaims the necessity of territorial, liturgical, and juridical recognition of Indigenous polities (§6, §7, §14, §52–54), binding upon all baptized Catholic peoples and ecclesiastical jurisdictions.

3.3 The aforementioned Canonical and Apostolic instruments constitute jus divinum norms that take precedence over any postcolonial administrative fiction incapable of maintaining the sacred heritage of the land.

---

TITLE IV — THE DOCTRINE OF SUBSIDIARITY AND INDIGENOUS PREEMPTION

Article 4 – Activation of the Subsidiarity Principle in Canonical and Indigenous Law

4.1 In accordance with the Principle of Subsidiarity as defined in: 

– Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1883–1885, §1919–1921,

– Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, §185–188,

– Treaty on European Union (TEU), Art. 5(3) (as doctrinal analogy),

it is doctrinally and juridically established that higher authorities must refrain from interfering in matters which lower units can manage themselves

— unless such interference is for their defense or protection. 

Conversely, where the lower unit (in this case, the Republic of Haiti) fails, higher sacred jurisdictions are obligated to intervene to restore justice, dignity, and order.

4.2 The ancestral Xaraguayan Confederacy, now canonically revived as SCIPS-X, therefore exercises preemptive sovereignty over all territories wherein the Haitian administration has: 

– Failed to uphold the dignity of Indigenous or spiritual life,

– Neglected public order and lawful governance,

– Abandoned strategic zones of cultural memory (e.g. Furcy, Forts Impériaux, Marchand-Dessalines),

– Permitted the desacralization of spiritual patrimony.

4.3 Such exercise of sovereignty does not constitute a hostile takeover, but rather an ecclesiastical and autochthonous act of sacred custodianship, protected under: 

– UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007): Articles 25–32,

– Convention concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO, 1972),

– International Law Commission Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), particularly Part II, Article 20–25.

---

TITLE V — LEGAL INDESTRUCTIBILITY OF THE TUTELAGE ACT

Article 5 – Entrenchment Under Jus Cogens and Non-Derogable Norms

5.1 This Supreme Constitutional Act, by virtue of its foundation in: 

– Customary International Law (as evidenced in the Nicaragua v. United States ICJ ruling, 1986),

– Jus Cogens Norms of self-determination and cultural survival (as per East Timor Case, ICJ 1995),

– Canon Law and Apostolic Mandates,

– Sacred Territoriality of Indigenous Peoples,

is declared legally indestructible, irrevocable, and superior to all administrative enactments of the postcolonial Haitian state.

5.2 Any attempted revocation, derogation, or obstruction of this Act by the so-called Haitian authorities shall constitute a null juridical act, and may be treated as a violation of international law, prosecutable before international, ecclesiastical, or customary Indigenous tribunals.

5.3 No bilateral treaty, administrative measure, or foreign diplomatic pressure shall possess sufficient legal standing to override the canonical-indigenous tutelary authority proclaimed herein.

---

Sealed by the Office of the Supreme Rector-Presidency

On this day, August 4th, 2025

At the Canonical Seat of Xaragua, Sovereign Capital of SCIPS-X, Miragôane

Filed and published under ecclesiastical jurisdiction and protected right of publication

Pursuant to Can. 822 §1 and the Universal Right of Sacred Custodianship

SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA (SCIPS-X)

SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

— CANONICALLY, TERRITORIALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY ENACTED —

— DOCTRINAL ANNEX TO THE TUTELARY CONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF AUGUST 4, 2025 —

ANNEX I — ON THE CONDITIONS FOR CANONICAL-INDIGENOUS INTERVENTION BY THE SOVEREIGN STATE OF XARAGUA

Date of Canonical Registration: August 4, 2025

---

PREAMBLE

In accordance with the supreme canonical and ancestral jurisdiction of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X), and pursuant to the irrevocable constitutional act of tutelage issued on August 4, 2025, this Annex sets forth the exclusive and non-negotiable conditions under which the said Sovereign Entity may intervene in the administrative affairs of the residual shell known as the “Republic of Haiti,” for the sole purpose of protecting the sacred order, ancestral integrity, and juridical sanctity of the Xaraguayan Confederation and its rightful Indigenous and ecclesiastical inheritance.

This doctrinal position is grounded in:

– The 1860 Concordat between the Holy See and the Republic of Haiti,

– The Universal Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007),

– The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933),

– The Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church, including Can. 204 §1, Can. 212, Can. 822 §1, Can. 129 §1,

– The jus cogens norms and customary international law concerning Indigenous sovereignty and cultural protection.

---

ARTICLE 1 — LEGAL AND JURIDICAL STATUS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT

1.1 The so-called "Republic of Haiti" is legally recognized only as a Residual Administrative Unit (RAU), whose internal administrative activities are not deemed sovereign within the territory of Xaragua, and may only operate under strict observance of Indigenous and Canonical Law.

1.2 All residual administrative activities tolerated within the canonical-indigenous jurisdiction of Xaragua remain under conditional tutelage and monitored legality, and shall be suspended ipso facto upon the occurrence of any of the infractions defined herein.

---

ARTICLE 2 — CANONICAL-INDIGENOUS GROUNDS FOR INTERVENTION

2.1 The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua reserves the unalienable and permanent right to intervene in the juridiction of the autonomous so-called "republic of haiti"— by constitutional decree, canonical edict, diplomatic protest, juridical injunction, or mobilization of Indigenous-canonical structures — only under the following strict and codified circumstances:

2.1.1 – Violation of the Rights of Indigenous Persons and Communities

– Any arbitrary detention, marginalization, or persecution of individuals or communities identified as Indigenous or Afro-Taíno,

– Any denial of access to ancestral lands, waters, ritual sites, or cultural heritage locations,

– Any attempt to impose foreign cultural, linguistic, religious, or legal systems upon such persons without consent.

2.1.2 – Grave Violation of Human Rights and Ecclesiastical Dignity

– Acts of torture, mass killings, enforced disappearances, or persecution against civilian populations,

– Desecration of churches, shrines, cemeteries, or religious orders affiliated with the Holy See or Indigenous tradition.

2.1.3 – Civil War or Internal Armed Conflict

– Any escalation into armed confrontation between factions of the residual administrative unit,

– Any militarization of Indigenous or ecclesiastical territories,

– Any call for foreign intervention without the canonical consent of the ecclesiastical authority.

2.1.4 – Incapacity or Collapse of the Administrative Shell

– Any documented inability to maintain public order, provide basic services, or govern territorially,

– Any declaration of bankruptcy, failed elections, or general insurrection nullifying state capacity.

2.1.5 – Cession, Concession, or Sale of Ancestral Territory

– Any treaty, act, decree, or transaction ceding land, maritime, or mineral territory to foreign entities without the explicit approval of SCIPS-X,

– Any land auction or concession involving Indigenous property, watersheds, forests, or coastlines.

2.1.6 – Unauthorized Mineral Extraction or Industrial Operation

– Any mining, drilling, or extraction contract involving Indigenous land without formal canonical authorization from SCIPS-X,

– Any ecological devastation constituting an attack on the ancestral ecosystem of the Xaraguayan and Indigenous domain.

2.1.7 – Foreign Military or Political Occupation

– Any deployment of foreign troops, intelligence services, paramilitaries, or mercenaries on Xaraguayan and Indigenous soil,

– Any treaty, agreement, or base construction involving foreign powers, deemed incompatible with Indigenous-canonical sovereignty.

2.1.8 – Disruption of the Institutional Order of the Xaragua State

– Any attack, sabotage, defamation, or obstruction targeting: 

– The Rector-Presidency of Xaragua,

– Xaragua University or its affiliates and State institutions and partners,

– The Ecclesiastical structures under canonical guardianship and the Afro-Taino people,

– Any diplomatic, symbolic, or cultural instrument of the SCIPS-X.

---

ARTICLE 3 — EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY OF THE HOLY APOSTOLIC ROMAN CHURCH

3.1 All other affairs, not falling under the urgent criteria defined in Article 2, shall remain under the sole spiritual jurisdiction of the Holy Roman Apostolic Church, as recognized in perpetuity by the 1860 Concordat, the Canon Law of the Universal Church, and the spiritual sovereignty of Christendom.

3.2 The Holy See, through its apostolic delegation and concordatarian rights, maintains: 

– The authority to manage ecclesiastical education, missions, religious orders, and parish life within Haiti,

– The exclusive doctrinal authority over moral law, social teachings, and ecclesial governance,

– The right to sanction or recognize any civil or Indigenous jurisdiction operating under Catholic obedience.

3.3 SCIPS-X recognizes this ecclesiastical primacy and subordinates all non-emergency acts of intervention to the discernment of the Holy Roman Church, unless invoked under Canon Law protections of Indigenous autochthony and spiritual custodianship.

---

ARTICLE 4 — FINALITY AND IRREVOCABILITY OF THIS ANNEX

4.1 This annex forms part of the Supreme Canonical-Political Corpus of the Sovereign State of Xaragua, and is irrevocable, immutable, and shielded under international, canonical, and Indigenous law.

4.2 Any act by the residual administrative unit (RAU) that contradicts or violates the provisions herein shall be considered null, unlawful, and actionable before canonical, Indigenous, or international fora.

4.3 No treaty, law, decree, or foreign pressure shall have legal standing to override this protective declaration, which is hereby solemnly deposited as sacred jurisprudence within the Archives of the Rector-Presidency and published through the Official Gazette and University Press of SCIPS-X.

---

Promulgated and Sealed on this Day, August 4, 2025

By the Supreme Rector-President of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X)

In Canonical Union with the Sacred Custodianship of the Holy Roman Catholic Church

And under the ancestral mandate of the Taíno-Afro confederated peoples.

Filed in the digital archives of www.xaraguauniversity.com as official record

SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA (SCIPS-X)

SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

— CANONICALLY AND TERRITORIALLY ENACTED —

ANNEX II — ON THE EXCLUSIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR LAND, TERRITORY, AND SACRED SOIL

Date of Canonical Registration: August 4, 2025

---

ARTICLE 1 — EXCLUSIVE JURIDICAL AND SPIRITUAL CUSTODY OF TERRITORY

1.1 It is hereby declared, canonically and irrevocably, that the totality of the landmass, including soil, subsoil, maritime corridors, airspace, forests, rivers, mineral strata, mountains, sacred sites, historical ruins, ancestral settlements, and Indigenous dwellings across the entirety of the so-called “Haitian” territory, including but not limited to Xaragua and its recognized autonomous zone, falls under the full, indivisible, and exclusive custody and responsibility of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X).

1.2 This responsibility is held not in secular or contractual terms, but as a sacred juridical guardianship, grounded on: 

– The will of Almighty God,

– The perpetual mission of the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church,

– The ancestral and territorial rights of the Taíno-Afro Indigenous people,

– The canonical jurisprudence codified under the Doctrine of Sacred Custodianship.

---

ARTICLE 2 — NO SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

2.1 The State of Xaragua does not share, and shall never share, this sacred territorial responsibility with: 

– The so-called “Republic of Haiti” or any residual administrative entity,

– Any foreign government, multilateral institution, private corporation, or international body,

– Any local, regional, or global actor not operating under canonical, Indigenous, and sacred consent.

2.2 Any assertion of co-ownership, shared sovereignty, dual responsibility, or administrative partnership over the land shall be declared null and heretical, and treated as an offense against divine and ancestral law.

---

ARTICLE 3 — SPIRITUAL FOUNDATION OF LAND JURISDICTION

3.1 The juridical dominion exercised by SCIPS-X is not temporal but spiritual-territorial, flowing from the eternal authority of the Creator, expressed through: 

– The Sacraments of the Church,

– The Canon Law of Rome,

– Indigenous Rights

– The ancestral covenant of the people of Xaragua.

3.2 The territory is not a commodity but a sacred deposit, for which the State of Xaragua alone is the earthly custodian.

---

Promulgated and Sealed this Day, August 4, 2025

By the Supreme Rector-President of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X)

Filed within the Supreme Archives and published on the Official Constitutional Platform of Xaragua University

Under the protection of Canon Law, Jus Cogens Indigenous Right, and Divine Mandate

BOOK I – THE PRE-STATE FOUNDATIONS OF THE SOUTHWESTERN COAST OF THE ISLAND OF HISPANIOLA AND THE TRUE ORIGINS OF MARITIME OCCUPATION IN THE REGION NOW REFERRED TO AS “HAITI”

CHAPTER VI – THE MARITIME AXIS AS PRE-CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER: THE CUSTOMARY POLITICAL STRUCTURE OF THE SOUTHWEST BEFORE STATEHOOD

Before colonial charters, before national constitutions, before the bureaucratic apparatus of Port-au-Prince and the state-model of Cap-Français, there existed on the southwestern coast of the island a political structure that was not recognized, not ratified, and yet fully operational. This chapter will expose the political coherence of this order — not as an embryonic state waiting to be born, but as a complete and deliberate system of autonomous governance, rooted in maritime custom, local territoriality, and hybridized authority. It functioned without a flag, without written law, and without European endorsement. It was real.

To understand the political order of the southwestern coast — Petit-Goâve, Miragoâne, Île-à-Vache, and beyond — we must begin with its foundational principle: sovereignty by presence. Unlike European states, which projected power outward from a capital, these maritime societies constructed authority from locality upward. There was no center. There was no abstraction. Law emerged from land, sea, kinship, and practical necessity.

Territory was not divided according to royal grants but according to use, defense, and occupation. Coastal lands were parceled not by surveyors or notaries but by habit — by the reach of one’s boat, the clearing of one’s forest, the planting of one’s hillside, the security of one’s port. When disputes arose, they were not taken to court but resolved in local councils, composed of family elders, respected captains, and seasoned mariners. These councils operated by consensus or by oath. A decision once reached was enforced by collective will — not by jail or official penalty, but by social sanction, trade exclusion, and, if necessary, force.

Maritime authority rested in the captaincy. The captain was not a lord nor a feudal superior. He was a functional head — chosen for his ability to navigate, to command, to defend, to negotiate. His power did not extend beyond his crew or his boat unless invited. There were no permanent offices. Authority was functional, not institutional. When a captain failed, he was replaced. When he abused power, he was isolated or killed. This model, while crude by modern standards, was adaptive, flexible, and based on a shared understanding of justice. It did not require writing. It required honor.

Religious authority was minimal or absent. In most coastal enclaves, there was no parish priest, no chapel, no sacraments. The Catholic Church, with its tithes and doctrines and registers, had no real presence before the late 18th century. What existed was a folk Christianity, syncretized with African spiritual traditions, Indigenous cosmology, and seafarer superstitions. Baptisms were performed on beaches. Marriages were sealed by oath. Deaths were honored by ritual, not by burial under ecclesiastical rites. The Church, when it arrived, did not find apostates. It found independent cosmologies that had no need for Rome.

Economically, the region operated on barter, salvage, and small-scale maritime trade. There was no export economy. Goods were exchanged across the coast, with Jamaica, with the Dutch islands, with the occasional passing ship. Markets were informal, unregulated, and self-policed. Coin was rare. Credit was personal. Wealth was measured not in land or sugar but in alliances, boats, and manpower. Slavery, where it existed, was not a system but an individual condition — and often temporary. Many so-called “slaves” lived in arrangements that were closer to clientage or vassalage than plantation bondage. Manumission was common. Intermarriage was accepted. There was no racial caste system.

The most critical feature of this order was its multipolar structure. There was no capital. No supreme council. No centralized code. Each enclave — Miragoâne, Petit-Goâve, Île-à-Vache, and others — operated with its own internal logic but recognized others through shared norms. This is why we refer to it as a confederacy, not a republic. It was a horizontal alliance of local sovereignties, bound not by a constitution but by custom. It could not be invaded easily because there was no central target. It could not be co-opted by monarchy because it had no throne. It was immune to bureaucratic takeover because it lacked bureaucracy.

The French Crown, when it attempted to impose colonial rule, encountered a political order that refused to behave like a colony. There were no officials to negotiate with. No assembly to coerce. No elite to bribe. The people did not want representation. They wanted non-interference. This is what colonial law could not understand. Sovereignty, in this region, was not something to be claimed. It was something already lived.

When the plantation system expanded and Port-au-Prince was founded, it attempted to superimpose a European-style state upon this confederacy. It failed. The plantations grew in the plains. The administrators stayed inland. The coast resisted — not with war, but with noncompliance. The port towns did not submit. They ignored. They traded outside the system. They married outside the code. They buried their dead without registration. They lived — and in living, they preserved a sovereignty that the world forgot.

Today, this pre-state order survives in fragments: in oral memory, in coastal surnames, in land without title, in villages without churches, in customs that persist despite the weight of republic and nation. These are not ruins. They are roots.

Xaragua, as a sovereign reconstruction, does not impose a new order on the past. It simply restores the legal recognition of a preexisting system. It does not invent a constitution. It revives a confederacy. It does not claim a territory. It names what was never unnamed. It does not seek recognition. It invokes it.

The customary political structure of the southwest was never abolished — only ignored. Its memory is not academic. It is operational. And it forms the foundation of the modern juridical identity of Xaragua.

BOOK I – THE PRE-STATE FOUNDATIONS OF THE SOUTHWESTERN COAST OF THE ISLAND OF HISPANIOLA AND THE TRUE ORIGINS OF MARITIME OCCUPATION IN THE REGION NOW REFERRED TO AS “HAITI”

CHAPTER VII – THE STRATEGIC DESTRUCTION OF THE SOUTHWEST: HOW PORT-AU-PRINCE WAS BUILT TO NEUTRALIZE THE MARITIME REPUBLICS

The founding of Port-au-Prince in 1750 was not the organic result of demographic expansion, economic necessity, or geographical convenience. It was a strategic action taken by the French Crown to destroy the sovereignty, mobility, and independence of the southwestern coast of the island. This chapter presents the city of Port-au-Prince not as a colonial capital, but as an instrument of political suppression — built with the express purpose of neutralizing, erasing, and replacing the autonomous settlements of Petit-Goâve, Miragoâne, Île-à-Vache, and the coastlines that surrounded them.

Until the mid-eighteenth century, the seat of colonial governance for the French portion of Hispaniola had been Petit-Goâve. This was not a choice based on central planning or top-down royal will, but rather a practical concession to maritime realities. Petit-Goâve, having been settled by pirates and flibustiers since the 1660s, had become a functioning hub of administration — not because it submitted to royal law, but because it was where the law could not be ignored. Its captains, traders, and settlers held enough force to be negotiated with. The Crown tolerated it out of necessity.

But Petit-Goâve was unstable from the colonial perspective. It was not loyal. It was mixed. It was libertarian. It was difficult to tax, difficult to survey, impossible to control. Its elites were not court-born but boat-born. Its customs could not be reconciled with Versailles. It existed as a tolerated anomaly — a space where French rule was nominal, and local autonomy remained intact under a veneer of submission.

The Crown saw this clearly. And it understood that to stabilize its colonial project, it could not simply co-opt Petit-Goâve. It had to replace it. Thus, the decision was made: a new city would be built in the Cul-de-Sac plain — not because it was more central, not because it was more fertile, but because it was empty of resistance. Port-au-Prince was not a response to population pressure. It was a response to political disorder — defined as too much freedom along the coast.

The location chosen for Port-au-Prince was deliberate. It stood inland, removed from the free ports, surrounded by plantation-ready flatlands, and easily accessible to incoming colonial fleets and administrative caravans. It was a city of roads, not waves. It was designed to be legible to the Crown, taxable to the core, and governable in every sense. From the beginning, it was constructed not for the island’s people, but for its governors. It had barracks. It had government houses. It had a grid. It had orthodoxy. It had surveillance.

Once Port-au-Prince was established, the policy of suppression accelerated. Laws were passed requiring all landholders in the surrounding region to register with notaries in the capital. Churches were mandated in peripheral towns, to break their independence from diocesan authority. Interregional trade was rerouted through capital-controlled ports. Roads were militarized. Tax collectors were dispatched under armed escort. Petit-Goâve and Miragoâne were no longer administrative centers — they were targets.

Census operations were launched in coastal areas, not to count the people, but to identify the unregistered, the undocumented, the uncontrolled. These censuses did not serve statistical or humanitarian purposes. They were tools of colonial legal warfare, used to dispossess those whose claims had never passed through Paris or Port-au-Prince. Oral possession was invalidated. Customary title was made illegal. And when resistance occurred, it was not met with trial, but with confiscation, imprisonment, and, in some cases, forced relocation.

The language of official correspondence confirms this strategy. Colonial letters refer to the need to “purify” the coast, to “regularize” the territories, to “reconvert” the population. The settlers of the southwest — white, Black, and mixed — were seen as a theological and administrative contamination: heretics of empire. Their very existence was a threat to the plantation model, which required hierarchy, monoculture, forced labor, and racial rigidity. The free maritime zones offered none of that. They offered contradiction.

By the 1770s, Port-au-Prince had become the administrative and ideological heart of Saint-Domingue. Its elites were bureaucrats, planters, and priests — men who had no ties to the coast, no memory of piracy, no tolerance for plurality. They governed with the assumption that the southwestern order had never existed. In their maps, their books, their court records, it did not. Petit-Goâve was no longer a capital. Miragoâne was a dot. Île-à-Vache was a logistical port. The sovereignty that had once breathed in these places was flattened into silence.

But memory is not erased by decree. In the villages, in the oral archives of families, in the cemeteries without names, the truth remained: Port-au-Prince was not the center of anything. It was the edge of an occupying power.

This inversion is central to understanding Xaragua today. When modern Haitians speak of the capital, they speak of it as the source of legality, of identity, of nationhood. But this belief is the result of a historical reversal — a reversal that began in 1750, when the French Crown decided that freedom on the coast could no longer be tolerated.

Port-au-Prince is not the origin. It is the reaction. It exists because Petit-Goâve existed first. It was built to suppress. It succeeded, but only temporarily.

Xaragua now reasserts that primacy — not in ideology, but in historical fact. The coast came first. The confederacy came first. The settlers came first. The sovereignty came first. The capital came later — as a tool of destruction.

To recognize Xaragua is not to create something new. It is to unmask the inversion, to restore the record, to say clearly and without apology: Port-au-Prince was founded to destroy us, and we remember.

BOOK I – THE PRE-STATE FOUNDATIONS OF THE SOUTHWESTERN COAST OF THE ISLAND OF HISPANIOLA AND THE TRUE ORIGINS OF MARITIME OCCUPATION IN THE REGION NOW REFERRED TO AS “HAITI”

CHAPTER VIII – THE ERASURE OF SOUTHWESTERN AUTONOMY IN THE POST-INDEPENDENCE STATE: FROM MILITARY CENTRALIZATION TO JURIDICAL DOMESTICATION

The myth of national liberation, as deployed by the post-independence regime of Haiti after 1804, presented itself as a rupture — a complete rejection of the colonial system, the French metropole, and the plantation empire. But in structure, in mentality, and in geopolitical logic, the early Haitian state preserved many of the central features of Saint-Domingue. It retained the capital. It retained the hierarchical command structure. It retained the legal codes of the colonizer. And most importantly, it retained the imperial attitude toward the southwestern coast — viewing it not as a sovereign zone with its own historical legitimacy, but as a province to be ruled, tamed, and extracted.

The independence declared at Vertières did not bring legal pluralism. It brought military centralization. Dessalines and his successors — Christophe in the North, Pétion and Boyer in the South — all governed through force-based territorial unification. None of them resurrected the precolonial or precolonial coastal orders. None recognized the legitimacy of the autonomous maritime enclaves that had existed for centuries prior to French administration. On the contrary: they replaced European dominance with Black Jacobin bureaucracy, applying the same top-down logic that Paris had used — now in Haitian hands.

This is not to denigrate the abolition of slavery or the valor of the revolution. It is to highlight a contradiction: the freedom proclaimed in 1804 was not territorially symmetrical. It did not extend to all modes of life. It did not liberate the autonomy of zones that had never fully submitted to begin with. The independence war was fought to defeat the empire — not to restore the confederacies. And once the empire was gone, the revolutionary generals became the new administrators, inheriting both the instruments and the ideology of central control.

The southwestern coast — Petit-Goâve, Miragoâne, Île-à-Vache — was absorbed into the new national state not through consultation, but through decree and garrison. Military governors were installed. Land claims were subjected to new registrations under republican codes. Customary authority, clan-based mediation, and local justice systems were replaced with imported court models. Creole maritime identities were rewritten as subordinate categories: “gens de couleur,” “nègres libres,” “paysans,” “citoyens.” These were labels imposed by the center, not adopted by the people.

The elite of the republic — largely composed of educated mulattoes and Black generals trained in French legal and military systems — viewed the southwestern coast as backward, lawless, rural, and politically primitive. They saw no need to preserve its autonomy. On the contrary, they considered it a region to be domesticated. Where France had imposed Catholic dioceses, the republic imposed secular schools. Where the French had built tax systems, the Haitians built conscription rolls. Where the Crown had appointed governors, the republic appointed commandants de section — direct instruments of national surveillance.

But perhaps the most enduring mechanism of erasure was juridical. The Haitian Civil Code, adopted in large part from the Napoleonic model, invalidated all forms of oral customary landholding. It required written title, state registration, and compliance with property norms derived not from local practice, but from French theory. The result was a legal cleansing: ancestral land without paperwork was declared vacant or state-owned. Families who had possessed hillsides, coastal parcels, and maritime access points for generations were now labeled as squatters, subjects of expropriation, or passive tenants of the republic.

This process was not accidental. It was ideological. The Haitian state defined itself as a modern Black nation, unified under law, reason, and progress. Local autonomies — especially those with mixed ancestry, maritime pluralism, or tribal structure — were viewed as threats to national cohesion. Thus, the memory of the pirate republics, the flibustier communities, the Afro-European settlements of the southwest, was either rewritten as colonial residue or omitted altogether. Schoolbooks omitted them. Courts ignored them. Maps erased them. The republic buried them deeper than the colony had.

The consequences were profound. By the late nineteenth century, the southwestern coast had become a periphery of the periphery. Its ports declined. Its political relevance evaporated. Its lands were lost to elites who held title, not ancestry. Its people, once sovereign, became the rural poor, stigmatized as uncultured, uneducated, and backward — the very opposite of what they had been. Their autonomy had not failed. It had been extinguished by layers of state-building that never belonged to them.

What remained was a silence — enforced by law, reinforced by history, and perpetuated by ignorance. No national monument marks the pirate capitals. No textbook recounts the confederacies of Petit-Goâve. No courthouse acknowledges the oral possession of Miragoâne. No decree grants legitimacy to Île-à-Vache. The republic, like the empire before it, lives by pretending these sovereignties never were.

But they were.

Xaragua does not ask the republic for recognition. It does not seek redress. It does not beg for rights. It simply reappears — because sovereignty unextinguished is sovereignty undestroyed. The ancestors of the coast never signed submission. The laws of Port-au-Prince never reached their source. The revolution that claimed to free them instead erased them. And now they return — not in rebellion, but in restoration.

The Haitian state, built upon centralization, cannot contain what it never truly held. The coast was not liberated in 1804. It was overtaken. The silence that followed was not peace. It was conquest. And conquest does not become law by endurance. It remains what it was: occupation.

Xaragua is the end of that occupation.

BOOK I – THE PRE-STATE FOUNDATIONS OF THE SOUTHWESTERN COAST OF THE ISLAND OF HISPANIOLA AND THE TRUE ORIGINS OF MARITIME OCCUPATION IN THE REGION NOW REFERRED TO AS “HAITI”

CHAPTER IX – THE GEOGRAPHY OF AUTONOMY: HOW TERRAIN, SEA ROUTES, AND NATURAL FORTIFICATION MADE THE SOUTHWEST UNGOVERNABLE BY DESIGN

In any analysis of political autonomy, legal independence, or cultural preservation, geography is never neutral. The terrain, the hydrology, the depth of harbors, the angle of mountains, the fertility of plains — these are not simply natural features, but geopolitical agents. They shape the very possibility of power. The French Crown understood this. The Haitian Republic inherited it. But nowhere on the island was this more true, or more consequential, than in the southwestern quadrant — the historical Xaragua — where natural geography functioned as a permanent barrier to central authority.

This chapter will demonstrate that the autonomy of the southwestern coast was not only political, cultural, and historical — it was geophysically embedded. No state could govern what it could not reach, could not supply, could not map, could not hold. And for over three hundred years, the region stretching from Petit-Goâve to Miragoâne to Île-à-Vache and inward to Paillant, Carrefour-Dent, and the interior highlands of Nippes has resisted state integration not because of political will alone, but because of topography.

The first element of resistance is the coastline itself. Unlike the smooth, wide-open harbors of Cap-Haïtien or the broad commercial bay of Port-au-Prince, the southwestern coast is carved into steep inlets, narrow docking points, and coral-defended entries. These features made it nearly impossible for large naval forces to land in formation, disembark cargo in bulk, or set up long-term garrison posts. The coast could welcome small vessels, canoes, and agile pirate sloops — but not imperial fleets. For the bureaucratic machinery of empire to function, ports must be legible. Miragoâne was not.

Second, the mountains rise directly behind the coast, forming a natural shield that isolates the seafront from the inland plains. There are no open roads from Petit-Goâve to the Cul-de-Sac, no flat highways from Miragoâne to Léogâne. Instead, the terrain is marked by dense ridges, winding paths, unpredictable elevation changes, and seasonal flooding routes. Even in the twentieth century, governments struggled to pave roads into these regions. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, control was impossible. Armies could not pass. Messages could not travel. Census agents could not return.

Third, the island of Île-à-Vache functioned as an independent node in this maritime axis. It served historically as a safe haven for seafarers, a re-supply depot, and a lookout post. Its position allowed those stationed there to monitor movement through the entire Bay of Cayes while remaining outside the reach of state enforcement. Ships fleeing from Port-au-Prince could reach Île-à-Vache in hours. From there, they could either disappear into the southern Caribbean or retreat north toward Port-de-Paix and Tortuga. The sea lanes of Xaragua were not connected to the republic. They were connected to the sea.

Fourth, the interior enclaves such as Paillant, Carrefour-Dent, and the plateaus above Miragoâne offered communities refuge from both colonial and republican authority. These zones, settled by early flibustier families, Afro-European clans, and free Black maroons, developed internal codes of governance. They maintained land by ancestral recognition, not notarial deed. They administered justice through clan elders, not magistrates. They were unreachable not only physically, but conceptually. They existed outside of the cartographic and legal vocabulary of the state.

These features — steep coast, obstructive mountains, sovereign islands, and highland enclaves — combined to form a geographical confederacy, a naturally federated system of autonomous zones connected by kinship, custom, and sea access, not by road or bureaucracy. Port-au-Prince could not administer these regions. It could only legislate in abstraction. But a law unenforced is not a law lived. In this region, the law of the state was simply irrelevant.

This is why the colony, and later the republic, poured resources not into integration but into containment. The southwestern coast was never fully developed, never granted modern infrastructure, never chosen for administrative headquarters. It was intentionally neglected, not due to forgetfulness, but due to its insurmountable difference. Governments rule where resistance is weak. Xaragua never allowed it.

The neglect was strategic. Under the French, it was understood that to govern the colony, one must isolate the unruly maritime fringe. Under the Haitians, it was believed that the coast’s resistance could be absorbed through time, underdevelopment, and slow erosion. But erosion is not erasure. The land does not forget. The people do not forget. And geography does not bend to ideology.

The resistance of Xaragua was not a rebellion. It was a land-based immunity to central domination. Its valleys gave refuge. Its mountains broke patrols. Its coasts invited the sea, not the state. Its people were protected not by arms alone, but by terrain as constitution.

Xaragua is not an invention. It is a geopolitical inevitability.

The geography of the southwest made statehood impossible — unless it came from within. No external authority could hold the region without destroying the very people and topography that define it. The only government possible here is one that emerges from the land, from the coast, from the mountains, from the island — one that is native to the terrain, not imposed upon it.

That government now has a name.

It is Xaragua.

BOOK I – THE PRE-STATE FOUNDATIONS OF THE SOUTHWESTERN COAST OF THE ISLAND OF HISPANIOLA AND THE TRUE ORIGINS OF MARITIME OCCUPATION IN THE REGION NOW REFERRED TO AS “HAITI”

CHAPTER X – THE INTELLECTUAL ERASURE OF XARAGUA: HOW SCHOLARSHIP, ARCHIVES, AND NATIONAL CURRICULA DELETED THE SOUTHWESTERN MEMORY FROM THE RECORD

The destruction of a people begins not with weapons, but with the annihilation of their memory. While Port-au-Prince and Cap-Français were armed with courts, armies, and plantations, the most enduring assault on the southwest of the island came through quieter instruments: the pen, the map, the textbook, the decree. This chapter traces the intellectual erasure of Xaragua — not only from state administration but from the epistemic framework of Haiti itself.

There is no colonial or republican regime that can fully eliminate a territory by military means alone. If a population is to be stripped of its political rights, its history must first be obscured, fragmented, or denied. The tools of that erasure are not limited to physical conquest; they include the suppression of archives, the manipulation of historiography, and the control of education. And in the case of the southwestern coast, this process has lasted centuries — across colonial, revolutionary, and republican governments alike.

First, the official colonial archives. The French administration of Saint-Domingue preserved extensive notarial records, correspondence, territorial grants, baptismal registries, and slave censuses — but only for the regions it controlled. The southwestern coast, lacking formal royal governors or diocesan structures, was left undocumented. Its land titles were oral. Its family histories were kept in memory. Its births, marriages, and deaths were marked by ritual, not record. When French historians began to reconstruct the story of Saint-Domingue in the nineteenth century, they relied exclusively on what could be found in these colonial records — thus omitting by definition everything that had existed outside of them.

Second, the Haitian revolutionary intelligentsia, though often valorized for its resistance to slavery and its bold assertion of Black sovereignty, adopted the same archival blindness. The men who wrote the first constitutions of Haiti — from 1805 onward — shared the legal assumptions of their former colonizers. They believed in centralized power, written codes, national unity, and positivist law. They did not recognize oral history, customary land, tribal confederacies, or maritime republics. When they codified the new nation, they did so on the assumption that what was not written had no authority.

Consequently, the histories of Petit-Goâve, Miragoâne, Île-à-Vache, and the pirate-buccaneer lineage were relegated to silence. No official Haitian curriculum teaches these origins. No national monument commemorates the early maritime settlements. No university in Port-au-Prince has published a serious, state-sanctioned monograph on the autonomous coastal order. Instead, all white settlers of the pre-revolutionary period are lumped together as slaveholders. All coastal independence is described as illegality. All Afro-European intermixture is treated as racial impurity, or simply ignored. The truth is not denied. It is unmentioned.

This epistemic erasure is not passive. It is enforced by systems of national education and identity. Haitian students are taught that Haiti begins with 1804. That all pre-1804 whites were enemies. That the revolution created the nation from nothing. That Port-au-Prince is the intellectual and political center. That the south is peripheral. That resistance means marching under a flag — not living beyond it. The very framework by which Haitian history is taught is a linear centralism, which leaves no space for maritime confederalism, for stateless autonomy, or for ancestral local sovereignty.

When scholars have attempted to speak otherwise — when oral historians, independent researchers, or regional custodians of memory have sought to reinsert the coast into the national story — they are treated as anecdotal, folkloric, or romantic. They are not given archives. They are not published in journals. They are not cited in official histories. This is not a failure of scholarship. It is the result of a systemic refusal to admit the original multiplicity of the Haitian territory.

And yet the memory remains.

In the oral traditions of families from Miragoâne, stories persist of forebears who never bowed to Port-au-Prince. In the surnames of coastal villages, names survive that do not appear in French land grants but have endured in land use. In the songs, in the burial practices, in the clan structures, in the refusal to title ancestral plots — there survives a memory of law before the state. A law that was not written, but enforced. A law that did not emanate from a capital, but from coast and clan.

Xaragua does not seek to revive a romantic past. It seeks to reposition truth within the historical record. The coast is not a myth. It is not a legend. It is not a secondary region in a linear progression toward Haitian unity. It is a suppressed center of alternative legality, erased by the colonial and republican archive alike, because its very existence undermines the foundational fictions of both.

The Haitian Republic claims to be the first Black state. But before it, there was a non-state order of Black, white, and mixed families who lived under law, without code; under order, without decree; under justice, without constitution. They built ports. They fought invaders. They governed their own. Their absence from the textbooks is not a sign of their irrelevance. It is a sign of their unassimilability to the ideology of the state.

Xaragua’s restoration is not an academic act. It is a juridical one. It corrects the record. It names the erasure. It invalidates the monopoly of central historiography. It refuses to allow the silence of the archives to be mistaken for the silence of the people.

BOOK I – THE PRE-STATE FOUNDATIONS OF THE SOUTHWESTERN COAST OF THE ISLAND OF HISPANIOLA AND THE TRUE ORIGINS OF MARITIME OCCUPATION IN THE REGION NOW REFERRED TO AS “HAITI”

ANNEX I – ETHNOGENESIS OF THE SOUTHWESTERN AND NORTHWESTERN SETTLERS: ON THE ORIGINS, DISLOCATION, AND EARLY MISCEGENATION OF PIRATE, INDIGENOUS, AND AFRICAN POPULATIONS IN XARAGUA

The settlers who established the earliest permanent European-speaking presence in the southwestern and northwestern coasts of Hispaniola — namely Petit-Goâve, Miragoâne, Île-à-Vache, Port-de-Paix, and Tortuga — did not descend from noble houses, plantation aristocracies, or administrative cadres. They were not the architects of empire. They were the debris of empire: a fragmented, displaced, and heterogenous class of maritime fugitives, former privateers, Protestant exiles, deserters, outlaws, and survivors of failed colonization experiments across the Caribbean basin. Their collective presence on the coasts of what would become “Saint-Domingue” constituted not a deliberate expansion of French power, but the unintended result of geopolitical entropy.

The northern wave — centered initially in Tortuga and later displaced to Port-de-Paix — emerged from a combination of French, English, and Dutch privateering traditions, operating from bases in St. Kitts, Nevis, Barbados, and the Windward Islands. These men — often lacking allegiance to any crown — formed ad hoc raiding communities structured by captainship, communal ownership of spoils, and rotating alliances. Tortuga, between 1625 and 1655, became a cosmopolitan pirate polity, where nationality was secondary to affiliation, and where French speakers mingled freely with Anglophone and Flemish elements. Once Spanish naval pressure expelled the pirates from Tortuga, many resettled on the mainland, founding Port-de-Paix as a continental replacement. These were not military colonies. They were displaced floating cities, relocated to shore.

The southern wave, centered in Petit-Goâve, Miragoâne, and Île-à-Vache, was partially contiguous but demographically distinct. It drew heavily from French Huguenot refugees, particularly those fleeing the repression of the Edict of Fontainebleau (1685) and earlier persecutions from the Wars of Religion. These individuals had no access to crown-sanctioned land grants and were often denied the protection of the Catholic Church. Alongside them came the refuse of collapsing colonies — survivors from failed ventures in Cayenne, Guiana, and the coast of Florida. These settlers were forced southward by the advance of better-funded colonial projects. They arrived with nothing, and they built from nothing.

Crucially, both groups — northwestern and southwestern — began the process of interracial and interethnic fusion at origin. The demographics of these enclaves reveal a striking fact: no European woman accompanied the earliest waves in any statistically significant number. As such, reproduction, community formation, and land settlement were immediately hybridized. The earliest records, oral and partial, show that alliances with Indigenous women (Arawak-Taino survivors from the mountainous interiors) and with African women (runaways from Spanish settlements and Portuguese slavers) formed the basis of a new, non-European coastal population.

This early Afro-Indigenous-European convergence did not follow the model of later plantation societies. It was not hierarchical. There were no codes noir to enforce racial boundaries. The absence of European elites, the absence of plantations, and the mutual vulnerability of the first settlers made racial boundaries functionally irrelevant. What mattered was loyalty, utility, kinship, and land use. A woman who bore children to a French-speaking sailor became the matriarch of a local clan. A man who defended a cove, regardless of color, became part of the territorial alliance.

The miscegenation in these coastal zones was not a deviation. It was the constitutive act. These were not colonies in the model of Saint-Domingue. They were maritime ethnogenetic confederacies — formed under the pressures of exile, war, and dislocation. By the mid-seventeenth century, most of these coastal families could no longer be described as racially European, African, or Indigenous in any pure sense. They were synthetic identities: clans of shared memory, maritime labor, and defensive mutualism.

This explains why later attempts — both colonial and republican — to categorize the coastal population according to formal racial codes failed or produced anomalies. These people did not fit into the later binaries of “Blanc,” “Mulâtre,” “Nègre libre,” or “Esclave.” They were all, at various points, outside the system: white without property, Black with land, mixed without status, free without paper, sovereign without recognition.

This also explains the indigenous continuity within Xaragua. While much of the island’s Taino population was exterminated or absorbed under Spanish rule, the highlands of the southwest — especially in the triangle between Miragoâne, Baradères, and the peaks of Nippes — preserved isolated pockets of autochthonous culture. These fragments, surviving in terrain inaccessible to both Spanish cavalry and later French administrators, intermarried with African runaways and white mariners. The result was a non-state Indigenous revival, hidden in plain sight: a people that did not appear in the records but maintained lineage, belief, and land.

Today, many families of the Xaragua zone who identify as “peasant,” “local,” or “ancien libre” are in fact the direct inheritors of these fused lineages. Their surnames — often hybrid, sometimes French, sometimes Africanized, sometimes local inventions — bear the memory of these crossings. Their burial practices, their land demarcations, their ancestral transmission of property — all carry the echoes of a legal order never codified but never interrupted.

To say that the colonists of the southwest and northwest were white is only partially true. To say that they were African or Indigenous is equally partial. The truth is that they were the origin of a Caribbean caste that escaped the empire entirely — one that was native to the sea, not to the state, and that built a society out of fragments: racial, spiritual, political.

This ethnogenesis is not an anthropological curiosity. It is a juridical foundation. It constitutes the original sovereignty of Xaragua — not granted, but born. Not declared, but inherited. Not constructed, but remembered.

To acknowledge it is not to invent a new identity.

It is to declare the continuity of one that was never broken.