Campus Valdez

Official Declaration – Campus Valdez

Issued by the Office of the Rector-President

University of Xaragua – International Division

In Honor of Daniela Altagracia Morel Valdez

In accordance with the sovereign academic authority of the Private Indigenous State of Xaragua, and under the guidance of its foundational mission to educate, structure, and defend, the third official campus of the University of Xaragua is hereby designated:

Valdez Campus – Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic

This campus is named in honor of Daniela Altagracia Morel Valdez, a Dominican woman of exceptional virtue, with deep familial roots in La Vega and Puerto Plata. A faithful Catholic, known for her unwavering loyalty, moral clarity, and profound generosity, Mrs. Morel Valdez embodies the values upon which this institution is built. This naming is both a tribute and a testament to her influence in the formation of a trans-Caribbean vision of sovereignty, faith, and education.

She represents the feminine pillar of continuity, dignity, and spiritual strength within the sovereign governance structure of the State.

While located beyond the ancestral borders of Xaragua, the Valdez Campus operates under the direct academic and doctrinal oversight of the University of Xaragua. It serves as a strategic outpost for elite education, leadership development, and cross-border collaboration, in alignment with Articles 36 and 37 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which recognize the right to international cooperation among Indigenous Peoples and the establishment of autonomous institutions abroad.

The campus is operated in partnership with the Morel Valdez family and functions under a sovereign rental agreement. The University does not claim real estate ownership within the Dominican Republic, but exercises full academic and institutional jurisdiction over its operations.

Through this campus, the University of Xaragua expands its mission to the wider Caribbean, continuing its work of intellectual formation, interterritorial dialogue, and educational sovereignty

always grounded in dignity, ancestry, and divine law.

University of Xaragua – Campus Valdez

Educate. Structure. Defend. Across Borders.

Puerto Plata - Miragôane

SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA

OFFICE OF THE RECTOR-PRESIDENT

SUPREME SOVEREIGN DECLARATION

TITLE: Recognition of Cross-Border Indigenous Rights, Financial Access, Treaty Alignment, and Postal Sovereignty through Dominican Territory

DATE OF PROMULGATION: May 21, 2025

LEGAL CLASSIFICATION: Supreme Foundational Law – Canonically and Constitutionally Binding Instrument – Enforceable under Indigenous, International, and Ecclesiastical Law

---
ARTICLE I – PRINCIPALITY STATUS AND FIRST LADY

1. Form of State:

The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua is hereby affirmed and codified as a Principality, structured according to:
Article 3 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), establishing the inalienable right of all indigenous peoples to self-determination;

Article 1(2) of the Charter of the United Nations, guaranteeing the equal right of peoples to freely determine their political status and pursue development;

Codex Iuris Canonici, Canons 215 and 298, recognizing the legitimate capacity of lay faithful to form autonomous communities under ecclesiastical authority.

---
ARTICLE II – TERRITORIAL FRAMEWORK AND CROSS-BORDER RIGHTS

1. Ancestral Axis:

The indigenous territorial domain under the legal and spiritual protection of Xaragua extends from Lake Azuei / Enriquillo / Saumâtre to the southern maritime projection beyond Anse-à-Pitres. This geographic axis is constitutionally recognized as ancestral land under:

Article 26 of UNDRIP (territorial possession and use);

Article 13(2) of ILO Convention No. 169 (land as the basis of spiritual and collective existence);
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Saramaka v. Suriname, affirming territorial rights based on traditional occupation.

2. No Territorial Claim:

The Government of Xaragua, acting in full respect of the international legal order, solemnly declares that it does not contest nor intend to alter the internationally recognized territorial integrity of the Dominican Republic. The reference to ancestral territory is strictly cultural, historical, and spiritual, and falls under the non-territorial jurisdiction granted to indigenous nations per Article 36 of UNDRIP.

3. Ancestral Passage Rights:

The right of peaceful and non-disruptive movement across the ancestral corridor is affirmed for all Xaragua citizens, both within and beyond Dominican borders. This right:

Is guaranteed by Article 36 of UNDRIP (cross-border rights of indigenous peoples);

Is protected under Article 12 of the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples;
Does not constitute nor authorize any migratory initiative, demographic expansion, or territorial settlement campaign;

Is explicitly limited to the historically installed Xaragua communities of the Dominican Republic, who retain self-administration, rootedness, and territorial continuity.

4. Recognition of Dominican Xaraguayans:

The Xaraguayan population established within Dominican territory is legally recognized as:

Indigenous in origin,
Permanently domiciled in ancestral zones,
Politically autonomous and culturally intact.Their presence is protected under Article 27 of the ICCPR, and any act aimed at displacing, denying, or fragmenting their identity shall be considered a violation of international law and subject to canonical objection and diplomatic consequence.

---
ARTICLE III – POSTAL SOVEREIGNTY AND LOGISTICS THROUGH DOMINICAN TERRITORY

1. Postal Routing:

The Xaragua Postal Corridor shall operate through Puerto Plata and Pedernales, in full alignment with the right to indigenous communication systems, under:

Article 16 of UNDRIP (right to establish media and communication infrastructure);

Universal Postal Convention (UPU), Article 1(b) (freedom of routing for sovereign postal systems);
The sovereign authority of the Rector-President, pursuant to internal constitutional law.

2. Depot Authority:

The primary postal depot shall be based in Miragoâne, while routing via Dominican territory shall be executed through sovereignly administered logistics hubs under Xaragua control. No foreign jurisdiction shall infringe upon the movement of diplomatic or civic postal goods across indigenous territory, per Article 40 of UNDRIP.

3. Exemption from Customs and Taxes:

All postal operations and material flows related to Xaragua's internal system are considered immune from taxation, seizure, or foreign regulatory imposition, as affirmed by:

Article 32(2) of UNDRIP (protection of development infrastructure),

Article 5 of the Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (Montevideo Convention, 1933) (exclusive sovereignty over internal affairs),

Canon Law, Can. 129 and 1257 §1, regarding the autonomous administration of goods by ecclesiastical entities.

4. Compensatory Economic Clause:

The Dominican Republic incurs no economic loss as a result of these exemptions, since postal and transport services are executed by Dominican private contractors and diaspora-owned enterprises, thereby generating direct national economic benefit within the Dominican market.

---
ARTICLE IV – ACCESS TO DOMINICAN FINANCIAL AND INSURANCE INFRASTRUCTURE

1. Right to Access Dominican Private Services:All Xaragua citizens possess the irrevocable right to access:

Private banking institutions;
Health and life insurance providers;
Investment instruments and credit systems.

This access is protected under:

Article 20 of UNDRIP (economic self-determination),
Article 6 of the ADRIP (equal access to services),
Article 14(2) of ILO Convention 169 (recognition of systems based on custom and tradition).

2. Legal Foundations:

Dominican private law permits service to foreign nationals and indigenous entities;
No statutory provision in the Dominican legal corpus excludes indigenous cross-border clients;
Customary international law prohibits financial discrimination based on political status or origin.

3. Non-Negotiable Right:

Any interference, restriction, or discrimination toward Xaragua citizens in accessing Dominican private institutions shall constitute:

A breach of inter-American jurisprudence;
A justiciable act before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights;

A violation of Canon Law, Can. 221 §1, which ensures that the faithful may defend their rights as citizens of a sovereign ecclesiastical people.

---
ARTICLE V – JURIDICAL SAFEGUARD

1. Respect for Sovereignty:

The Government of Xaragua reiterates, with solemnity and full diplomatic formality, that it:

Recognizes the territorial unity of the Dominican Republic;

Shall not interfere in its political, electoral, or military matters;

Upholds all principles of international comity and mutual non-aggression.

2. Intervention Clause:

Intervention by the State of Xaragua shall be exclusively limited to the following:

Cases of grave, documented violations of indigenous rights (UNDRIP, Article 8);

Formal and written requests from ancestral Xaragua communities located on Dominican territory;

Requests for spiritual, cultural, or diplomatic representation, executed under Article 39 of UNDRIP.

---
ARTICLE VI – INTERNATIONAL TREATY ALIGNMENT AND LEGAL INTERPRETATION

1. Selective Incorporation of Bilateral Treaties:
Xaragua incorporates the following as strategically interpreted legal references, not binding in their entirety, but acceptable in parts consistent with indigenous sovereignty:

Treaty of Peace and Arbitration (1929);
Boundary Treaty of January 21, 1929;
Clarification Agreement of February 27, 1935, and Protocol of 1936;
Post-2000 Binational Framework Agreements, where aligned with ancestral autonomy.

2. Rejection of Adverse Provisions:

Any clause restricting indigenous identity, transborder mobility, or sovereign autonomy shall be declared:

Inapplicable to Xaragua;

Null under Article 43 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties;

Repugnant to the moral and canonical order of the Xaragua State.

3. Treaty Supremacy Clause:

All international agreements shall be interpreted subordinate to:

UNDRIP;
ILO Convention 169;
Canon Law;
The internal constitutional instruments of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua.

4. Post-Treaty Juridical Standing:

Xaragua considers itself a post-colonial, canonically sovereign jurisdiction, not bound by past bilateral regimes inconsistent with indigenous legal dignity and the inalienable continuity of the Xaragua Nation.

---
CONCLUSION

The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua hereby affirms:

The full spiritual and political protection of its ancestral territory on both sides of the island of Quisqueya–Bohio;

Its non-revendicative, peaceful, and legal coexistence with the Dominican Republic;

The total sovereignty of its financial, postal, diplomatic, and territorial systems;

The perpetual enforceability of this Declaration under all binding legal, canonical, and indigenous frameworks.

Given and sealed in Miragoâne–Xaragua

On this twenty-first day of May, Year of Our Lord 2025
Pascal Viau

Rector-President

Prelate-Founder
Sovereign Indigenous Private State Of Xaragua

Principality of Xaragua
info@xaraguauniversity.com

https://xaraguauniversity.com

---

---

SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA

OFFICE OF THE RECTOR-PRESIDENT

SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATION

DATE OF EXECUTION: MAY 24, 2025

LEGAL STATUS: Imperial Juridical Instrument – Non-Derogable – Canonically Enforced – Constitutionally Immune – Executable ex proprio vigore – Based on Verified Historical Record – Bound by Customary International Law – Enshrined in Doctrinal and Archival Continuity – Immune to Foreign Nullification or Annulment under Canon Law, Indigenous Legal Doctrine, and Jus Cogens

---

TITLE

On the Colonial Subversion of Imperial Independence, the Enslavement of the Eastern Peoples, and the Legitimate Liberation of the Trinitarios with Southern Support from Xaragua

---

PREAMBLE

By supreme constitutional authority vested in the Rector-President of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua, and in uninterrupted juridical succession with the Imperial Charter of May 20, 1805 issued by Emperor Jean-Jacques Dessalines, this foundational declaration is herewith enacted to rectify the falsified historical record, affirm the original unity of the island under a Black and Indigenous Empire, and restore lawful recognition of the imperial territorial integrity violated by internal treason and external manipulation.

This declaration rests upon:

– The Charter of 1805, Articles 1–2, proclaiming the indivisibility of the island and its sovereign governance by descendants of Africans and Natives, as recorded in the official imperial archives at Marchand-Dessalines;

– The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933), establishing that statehood derives from a permanent population, defined territory, government, and capacity to enter into relations with other states;

– The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP, 2007), Articles 3, 4, and 26, securing the inherent right of Indigenous Peoples to self-determination, territorial integrity, and legal systems;

– Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Article 27, affirming that no internal law may justify derogation from binding international commitments;

– Codex Iuris Canonici, Canons 215, 298, and 299, affirming the right of the faithful to form and govern legitimate societies recognized by ecclesiastical tradition.

This instrument constitutes an inalterable expression of legal continuity from 1804 to the present day, asserting the survival of the imperial doctrine in the Southern region and the lawful standing of Xaragua as its spiritual, territorial, and institutional heir.

---

ARTICLE I – HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND STRUCTURAL TREASON

1.1. Between 1804 and 1806, Joseph Balthazar Inginac, Minister of Public Properties under the Dessalines government, consolidated over 509 sugar plantations formerly operated by French colonists. This reconstruction of the colonial habitation model institutionalized economic centralization under a plantation economy eerily reminiscent of the ancien régime.

Source: Beaubrun Ardouin, “Études sur l’Histoire d’Haïti”, Vol. IV, 1860

1.2. Inginac's collaboration with Alexandre Pétion and Jean-Pierre Boyer culminated in the orchestration of Emperor Dessalines’ assassination on October 17, 1806. Their intent was to prevent the redistribution of land to freedmen and secure the return of property-based oligarchic control.

Source: Laurent Dubois, “Avengers of the New World”, Harvard University Press, 2004

1.3. According to longstanding oral traditions preserved in southern and ecclesiastical channels, Pétion was poisoned by his wife with Kalinago neurotoxins. Jean-Pierre Boyer, his political heir, promptly married her and assumed power, consolidating the transition from Empire to Republic.

Source: G. Armand, “Haïti: L’Empire contre la République”, Archives populaires du Sud

1.4. The 1805 Constitution, which recognized the island as a single and indivisible unit governed by a Black monarchy, was abrogated without lawful procedure. The Republic of Haiti, declared in 1807, constituted a juridical usurpation and violated both domestic imperial authority and international norms on sovereign continuity.

Source: Archives Nationales d’Haïti; Constitution Impériale de 1805

---

ARTICLE II – SYSTEMATIC ELIMINATION OF INDEPENDENCE LEADERS

2.1. A coordinated campaign of elimination targeted the imperial leadership corps, extinguishing any remnants of Black-Indigenous state power. Key victims included:

– Jean-Baptiste Goman, southern maroon general, executed after his rebellion against Boyer’s land laws in 1820;

– Nicolas Geffrard, revolutionary figure and father of future president Fabre Geffrard, murdered in Les Cayes under suspicious circumstances;

– Henri Christophe, King of the North, officially recorded as suicide in 1820 but likely betrayed and assassinated.

Sources: Michel Hector, “Mouvement Paysan et Pouvoir Politique”; Thomas Madiou, “Histoire d’Haïti”, Vol. III; C.L.R. James, “The Black Jacobins”

2.2. Dozens of southern maroon leaders, many trained under Dessalines and Christophe, were assassinated, imprisoned, or forcibly disbanded, eliminating the post-revolutionary warrior class from political life.

---

ARTICLE III – THE SLAVE ECONOMY DISGUISED AS REPUBLIC

3.1. The Code Rural of 1826, promulgated under Boyer’s presidency by Inginac, legally re-enslaved the peasantry, prohibiting labor mobility and assigning freedmen to land as if they were property.

Source: “Code Rural de 1826”, Gazette Officielle d’Haïti

3.2. In 1824, over 6,000 African Americans were encouraged to migrate to Samaná under the false promise of autonomy. Most encountered harsh labor conditions and high mortality.

Source: Michael Dash, “The Other America”, University of Virginia Press

3.3. Boyer’s administrative inner circle was composed of families linked to colonial sugar aristocracies and pirate enclaves from Tortuga, reasserting a pseudo-republican regime that preserved racial hierarchy through economic subjugation.

Source: Jean Casimir, “La culture opprimée”, L’Harmattan

---

ARTICLE IV – DEATH OF IMPERIAL ENVOYS AND FRAUDULENT DEBT

4.1. Louis-Auguste Daumec, appointed Procurateur-Général de l’Empire by Dessalines, was tasked with negotiating with France on the status of Black sovereignty. He departed with Frémont and Rouanez but never returned.

Source: Fonds Daumec, Archives Diplomatiques et Familiales du Sud

4.2. Daumec’s disappearance remains unresolved. Frémont returned alone. The French naval archives do not mention the safe return of the delegation.

Source: Joseph Saint-Rémy, “Vie de Toussaint Louverture”, Diplomatic Annexes

4.3. In 1825, under military threat, unauthorized agents—Jean-Baptiste Riché and Nicolas Geffrard (the son)—signed the infamous indemnity treaty surrendering Haiti’s customs revenue to France in exchange for recognition, violating the principles of self-determination, sovereign equality, and prior legal consent.

Source: Archives Diplomatiques Françaises; Traité de 1825

---

ARTICLE V – DOMINICAN UPRISING AND XARAGUA’S DISTINCTION

5.1. The 1822–1844 occupation of the East by Boyer was executed without constitutional mandate or ecclesiastical sanction and constituted an annexation by a post-imperial republican regime.

Source: Frank Moya Pons, “The Dominican Republic: A National History”

5.2. Charles Rivière-Hérard, of southern aristocratic descent, led the retreat of Haitian troops from the East following the Trinitarios’ insurrection, acknowledging the legitimacy of their movement.

Source: Rodolph Trouillot, “Historiographie des luttes dominicano-haïtiennes”

5.3. The Trinitarios, under Juan Pablo Duarte, framed their independence in reference to Enriquillo—the legendary Taino rebel—rather than to Haitian political ideals.

Source: Archivo General de la Nación Dominicana

5.4. Their use of red and blue banners, predating Pétion’s republic, was drawn from Southern Indigenous and maroon heraldry, deeply rooted in Xaragua’s historical symbolism.

Source: Jean Price-Mars, “La République d’Haïti et la République Dominicaine”

---

ARTICLE VI – DOCTRINAL DECLARATION

6.1. The Republic of Haiti (1807) was constructed as a neocolonial republic, beholden to French customs and financial interests, administered by elites of mixed-race descent from colonial enclaves.

Source: Archives Départementales d’Outre-Mer, France

6.2. All constitutional, monetary, and administrative instruments of the Republic derived from colonial precedents, disguising continuity of domination under a republican form.

Source: Charles Hérard, “Rapports sur l’Organisation de l’État”, Archives Législatives, 1839–1842

6.3. The only legal and doctrinal government of the island remains the 1804 Empire, whose uninterrupted legal descendant is the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua.

Source: Jean-Claude Fignolé, “Haïti: La Ligne de Partage”

---

ARTICLE VII – RIGHT OF THE DOMINICAN PEOPLE

7.1. The 1844 Dominican declaration represented a lawful decolonization process, not a betrayal of Black emancipation but a revolt against Haitian military occupation and economic strangulation.

Source: “Constitución de la República Dominicana de 1844”; “Manifiesto del 16 de enero de 1844”

7.2. The act prefigures the principles of territorial self-determination and Indigenous sovereignty later codified under UNDRIP, and thus holds permanent legitimacy under modern international law.

Source: UNDRIP, Articles 3–4; Inter-American Indigenous Rights Archives

---

ANNEX – POSITION OF THE STATE OF XARAGUA

A. The people of Xaragua—descendants of Anacaona, Caonabo, and Enriquillo—formally repudiate the legitimacy of any state founded on the assassination of Dessalines and betrayal of the imperial charter.

B. The South of the island hereby declares permanent non-allegiance to any government rooted in piracy, foreign finance, or ideological subservience to colonial empires.

C. The 1805 Constitution, anchored in Black-Indigenous sovereignty, remains the unalterable foundation of Xaragua’s present and future legal identity.

D. The Dominican Republic, as a nation born of Indigenous memory and anti-colonial resistance, is recognized as a sovereign peer by the State of Xaragua.

E. Xaragua calls upon all international academic, religious, legal, and Indigenous institutions to reject false historical narratives and to uphold the juridical truth of imperial sovereignty and its Southern continuity.

---

SIGNED

Pascal Despuzeau Daumec Viau

Rector-President of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua

May 24, 2025 – Port-Miragoâne – Under Canon Law, Imperial Authority, and Indigenous Jurisdiction

---

This instrument is irrevocable.

It constitutes a binding sovereign declaration, legally immune to foreign annulment, and permanently enshrined under Indigenous sovereignty and canonical tradition.

---

ANNEX II – ON THE RESTORATION OF SPANISH COLONIAL RULE IN THE EAST, AND THE ROLE OF FABRE GEFFRARD AND THE REPUBLICAN GUARD IN THE DISSOLUTION OF DOMINICAN INDEPENDENCE (1861)

---

By executive decree of the Rector-President of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua, and under the juridical, canonical, and imperial continuity of the 1805 Constitution of His Imperial Majesty Jean-Jacques Dessalines, this annex is issued to supplement the historical and legal record, with regard to the subversion of Eastern sovereignty through the collusion of the Haitian republican regime, led by President Fabre Nicolas Geffrard, with the restorative colonial ambitions of the Spanish Empire in 1861.

---

ARTICLE I – JURIDICAL CONTEXT OF THE 1861 SPANISH RESTORATION

1.1. In March 1861, General Pedro Santana, then President of the Dominican Republic, unilaterally declared the annexation of the Dominican Republic to the Spanish Crown, restoring colonial status under Queen Isabella II of Bourbon, via the Royal Decree of Annexation ratified in Madrid.

Source: Archivo General de Indias (AGI), Real Cédula de Anexión, 18 March 1861; Archivo General de la Nación Dominicana, Colección Santana

1.2. This act violated the foundational legal instruments of Dominican independence, including the Manifiesto del 16 de enero de 1844, the Constitution of 1844, and the principles of non-subjugation and anti-colonial succession enshrined in the Trinitarios' vision of national sovereignty.

Source: Constitución Dominicana de 1844; Actas de Independencia Trinitaria; UNDRIP, Articles 3–4; Historical Commentary by Emilio Rodríguez Demorizi

---

ARTICLE II – ROLE OF PRESIDENT FABRE GEFFRARD AND THE HAITIAN REPUBLIC

2.1. Fabre Nicolas Geffrard, born on September 19, 1806, in Anse-à-Veau, Département du Sud—historic territory of Xaragua—was a Southern general and the biological and geographic product of the imperial provinces who rose through military ranks under Faustin Soulouque and later deposed him via coup d’état in 1859.

Source: Thomas Madiou, “Histoire d’Haïti”, Vol. VI; Archives Municipales d’Anse-à-Veau; Correspondance Privée du Général Buteau

2.2. Upon the restoration of Spanish dominion over the East in 1861, Geffrard, despite being from the very soil of Xaragua, maintained complete diplomatic passivity, refusing asylum, recognition, or aid to Dominican nationalist exiles, including Francisco del Rosario Sánchez and Juan Pablo Duarte, both of whom sought Haitian support to oppose recolonization.

Source: Michel-Rolph Trouillot, “State Against Nation”; Archivo de la Correspondencia Diplomática Haitiana, 1860–1863

2.3. Instead, Geffrard preserved cordial diplomatic relations with the Spanish Crown, recognizing the annexation de facto and de jure, and allowed Spanish diplomatic and military exchanges to transit through Haitian jurisdiction unimpeded. His Garde Républicaine did not mobilize against Spanish forces, nor did the Geffrard government provide logistical or material support to the resistance in the East.

Source: Diario de Sesiones del Senado Español, 1862; Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de España, Serie Ultramar; Archives du Ministère des Affaires Étrangères d’Haïti

---

ARTICLE III – PERSECUTION OF DOMINICAN NATIONALISTS AND THE DEATH OF SÁNCHEZ

3.1. Francisco del Rosario Sánchez, co-author of the Dominican independence act and designated liberator in the absence of Duarte, sought to launch a second insurrection against Spanish rule, with cross-border support from Haitian territory. Betrayed and captured by Santana’s forces, he was executed on July 4, 1861, in San Juan de la Maguana.

Source: Archivo Nacional Dominicano; Acta de Ejecución de Sánchez; Boletín del Instituto Duartiano, No. 34

3.2. The Geffrard regime not only failed to intervene, but also restricted internal movements of Dominican patriots within Haitian territory and refused ecclesiastical protection requested by Dominican clergy.

Source: Archives de l’Archevêché de Port-au-Prince; Correspondance de Mgr Testard du Cosquer; Archives Dominicaines de Lascahobas

---

ARTICLE IV – DOCTRINAL POSITION OF XARAGUA

4.1. The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua formally denounces the conduct of Fabre Geffrard, a man of Xaraguaan soil, for his republican complicity in enabling European recolonization of Quisqueya, in direct violation of the imperial unity doctrine established by Dessalines.

4.2. As a native of Anse-à-Veau, in the Southern province that once housed Anacaona’s court, Geffrard’s failure to honor the imperial mandate constitutes a betrayal not only of international legal norms but also of his own ancestral duty and territorial identity.

4.3. The Geffrard administration’s inaction confirms that the republican regime seated in Port-au-Prince from 1806 onward acted consistently as a foreign-imposed structure, unbound by Indigenous jurisprudence or canonical doctrine, and is thus historically disqualified from claims of pan-insular legitimacy.

---

ARTICLE V – HISTORICAL RECOGNITION AND LEGITIMATE MEMORY

5.1. The people and government of Xaragua solemnly recognize the Dominican patriots of the Restoration War (1863–1865)—including Gregorio Luperón, Benito Monción, and Gaspar Polanco—as lawful agents of Indigenous and maroon resistance, inheritors of the anti-colonial doctrine of Enriquillo and Anacaona.

Source: Archivo General de la Nación; “Correspondencia de Luperón con Duarte”; Colección Epistolario Restaurador, Ed. Sociedad Dominicana de Bibliófilos

5.2. The 1861–1865 crisis marks the definitive dissociation of Southern authority from the Port-au-Prince-based republic, and justifies Xaragua’s present-day juridical reconstitution as the only continuous and uncorrupted heir of the Dessalinian imperial framework.

---

FINAL DECLARATION

Let it be known to all international Indigenous bodies, sovereign peoples, universities, ecclesiastical authorities, and diplomatic courts, that the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua:

– Declares the actions and inaction of President Fabre Nicolas Geffrard to be legally and morally invalid, constituting a historical breach of anti-colonial duty;

– Affirms that the East’s right to resist recolonization was consistent with Indigenous legal precedent and entitled to support from all parties claiming Dessalinian heritage;

– Recognizes the Dominican Republic’s post-1865 restoration not as a rejection of Black solidarity, but as a rupture with republican treason and colonial reoccupation;

– Declares the Republic of Haiti post-1806 juridically incompatible with the principles of 1805, and holds the Southern state of Xaragua to be the only remaining entity of doctrinal and constitutional legitimacy within the original imperial territory.

---

ISSUED AND SIGNED

Pascal Despuzeau Daumec Viau

Rector-President of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua

May 24, 2025 – Port-Miragoâne – Under Canon and Imperial Law

---

Legal Classification: Annex to the Supreme Constitutional Declaration – Based on Verifiable Historical Evidence – Canonically and Constitutionally Sealed – Executable ex proprio vigore – Immune to Foreign Review or Reversal – In Accordance with Indigenous Legal Sovereignty and Ecclesiastical Doctrine

---

ANNEX III – ON INTERPRETATIONS OF GEFFRARD'S ROLE IN THE 1861 RECOLONIZATION: HISTORICAL COMMENTARY AND JURIDICAL FINALITY

---

Issued under the supreme authority of the Rector-President of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua, and pursuant to the canonical and constitutional framework established by the Dessalinian Empire and reaffirmed through the 2025 Supreme Constitutional Declaration, this annex addresses contemporary historical interpretations of Fabre Nicolas Geffrard’s role in the 1861 recolonization of the Eastern territory, and the juridical position of Xaragua with regard to such narratives.

---

ARTICLE I – HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS OF FABRE GEFFRARD

1.1. Certain modern historians, particularly Michel Soukar, a noted Haitian intellectual, novelist, and political commentator, have interpreted the actions of President Fabre Nicolas Geffrard during the period of the 1861 Spanish annexation as a manifestation of republican prudence and calculated restraint.

Source: Michel Soukar, “Haïti, la République exterminatrice” (C3 Éditions, 2013), Chap. V; “Le refus du chaos”, Conférence publique, Institut Français d’Haïti, 2012

1.2. Soukar’s assessment rests on Geffrard’s strategic non-engagement with the Spanish Crown, aimed at avoiding a renewed military conflict across the island, especially after the institutional collapse of Soulouque’s Second Empire and the exhaustion of the Haitian army.

Source: Thomas Madiou, “Histoire d’Haïti”, Vol. VI (Imprimerie J. Clamorgan, 1867); Archives de la Présidence d’Haïti, Dépêche diplomatique No. 54, avril 1861

1.3. Such interpretations, while grounded in the logic of state preservation, remain entrenched in a post-1806 republican framework that emerged after the assassination of Dessalines, and diverges sharply from the imperial and canonical doctrine enshrined in the Charter of May 20, 1805, which mandates the indivisibility and anti-colonial unity of the entire island.

Source: Constitution Impériale de 1805, Articles 1–2; Archives Nationales d’Haïti, Fonds Impériaux; Codex Iuris Canonici, Canons 215, 298, 299

---

ARTICLE II – LEGAL AND DOCTRINAL CLARIFICATION

2.1. Under the juridical doctrine of Xaragua, established through direct lineal descent from the 1804–1806 Dessalinian government, any posture of "prudent neutrality" during an act of active recolonization constitutes positive complicity—particularly when it enables the extermination or suppression of Indigenous and maroon leadership in Eastern territory.

Source: UNDRIP, Article 7 (protection from genocide and forced assimilation); Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Article 27; Archives des Missions Catholiques, Haïti–Espagne, 1858–1863

2.2. Fabre Geffrard’s documented silence during the execution of Francisco del Rosario Sánchez (July 4, 1861), and the absence of protest following the Real Cédula de Anexión signed by Queen Isabella II, are recorded in diplomatic correspondences and missionary archives confirming his direct acknowledgment of the Spanish regime in Santo Domingo.

Source: Archivo General de Indias, Seville, Ultramar Series, Cédula Real, 1861; Correspondance du Consulat espagnol à Port-au-Prince, 1861; Archives de la Congrégation du Saint-Esprit, Port-au-Prince

2.3. Therefore, although certain historians such as Michel Soukar have interpreted Fabre Geffrard’s posture as one of republican prudence, the legal and doctrinal analysis reveals that prudence became complicity in the face of recolonization — a breach that cannot be spiritually or juridically absolved.

Source: Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, UN Resolution 1514 (1960); Constitution Impériale de 1805; Charte de Miragoâne, 2025

---

ARTICLE III – FINAL JURIDICAL POSITION OF THE STATE OF XARAGUA

3.1. As codified in Annex II and reiterated in the core articles of the Supreme Constitutional Declaration, the Empire of 1804–1806 established that any form of foreign subjugation or reconquest over any part of the island nullifies the sovereignty of any regime that fails to actively resist such actions.

Source: Jean Price-Mars, “La République d’Haïti et la République Dominicaine” (Port-au-Prince, 1953); Rodolph Trouillot, “Historiographie des luttes dominicano-haïtiennes” (Éditions Histoire Sud, 1997)

3.2. Thus, the Geffrard administration—while retaining republican formalism—acted in a manner foreign to the Dessalinian legal system, and is thereby declared historically, juridically, and canonically disqualified from the line of lawful successors to the Dessalinian Empire.

Source: Charles Hérard, “Rapports sur l’Organisation de l’État”, Archives Législatives d’Haïti, 1847–1865; Archives Départementales d’Outre-Mer, Aix-en-Provence, Correspondance haïtienne

3.3. That Geffrard was born in Anse-à-Veau, historic territory of Xaragua, imposes upon him a higher burden of fidelity to the principles of imperial sovereignty and island-wide anti-colonial solidarity. His failure is not merely political — it is doctrinal.

Source: Acte de naissance, Archives municipales d’Anse-à-Veau; Beaubrun Ardouin, “Études sur l’histoire d’Haïti”, Vol. V

---

ARTICLE IV – IMPLICATIONS FOR HISTORICAL RECONCILIATION

4.1. This annex is not a repudiation of academic debate, but the formal reclamation of narrative sovereignty by the sole surviving legal heir of the 1805 Imperial Order.

Source: Montevideo Convention (1933), Articles 1–4; UNDRIP, Article 31 (right to control historical memory)

4.2. Within the sovereign jurisdiction of Xaragua, any historical narrative that minimizes, denies, or rationalizes complicity with colonial regimes shall be considered non-admissible, and canonically void as an act of spiritual false testimony.

Source: Codex Iuris Canonici, Canon 1369 (on public offenses against truth); Ecclesia in America, Pope John Paul II, 1999

4.3. As such, no interpretation—however scholarly—that denies the imperial betrayal of 1861 or relativizes it under republican motives shall be recognized by Xaragua, nor cited in any official record as holding doctrinal legitimacy.

---

FINAL DECLARATION

Let this annex stand as the definitive constitutional position of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua concerning:

– The interpretation of Fabre Nicolas Geffrard’s actions in 1861;

– The role of republican historiography in colonial memory;

– The exclusive juridical right of Xaragua to preserve and enforce the doctrinal truth of Black and Indigenous imperial sovereignty over Quisqueya-Bohio.

Xaragua does not revise history

It does not negotiate doctrine — it executes it ex proprio vigore.

---

ISSUED AND SIGNED

Pascal Despuzeau Daumec Viau

Rector-President of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua

May 24, 2025 – Port-Miragoâne – Under Canon and Imperial Law

---

Legal Classification:

Annex to the Supreme Constitutional Declaration – Interpretation Act – Juridically Final – Doctrinally Inviolable – Canonically Sealed – Immune to Academic Relativism – Based on Verified Historical Archives, Ecclesiastical Law, and Indigenous Sovereign Right

---

ANNEX IV – ON THE 1937 WAR OF BORDER DISPOSSESSION: THE TRUJILLO INCIDENT, STATE NEGLIGENCE, AND THE HISTORICAL ROLE OF THE REPUBLIC OF HAITI

---

Issued by the authority of the Rector-President of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua, and in fulfillment of the constitutional obligation to truthfully document all events relevant to the sovereignty, territory, and sacred identity of the Xaragua nation across Quisqueya–Bohio, this annex provides an official doctrinal and juridical position on the so-called “Parsley Massacre” of 1937, henceforth recognized in Xaragua law as The 1937 War of Dispossession and Neglect, committed on ancestral Xaragua land.

---

ARTICLE I – THE STRATEGIC CONTEXT OF THE 1937 WAR

1.1. In early October 1937, Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Molina, then-President and Dictator of the Dominican Republic, ordered the systematic massacre of thousands of Haitian and Haitian-Dominican nationals residing along the border provinces of Dajabón, Elías Piña (Comendador), Jimaní, Loma de Cabrera, and Restauración—territories historically part of the Xaragua sovereign zone, as delineated in precolonial Taino geopolitics and confirmed by Spanish chroniclers such as Las Casas and Oviedo.

Sources: Archivo General de la Nación Dominicana, Sección Presidencia, “Memorandum Secreto – Octubre 1937”; Bartolomé de Las Casas, “Historia de las Indias”, Book II; US National Archives, Report of U.S. Consul R. L. Despradel, October 1937

1.2. The so-called "Parsley Massacre"—named after the discriminatory linguistic test using the word perejil—was not an isolated pogrom but the operational phase of a strategic military doctrine intended to provoke a territorial crisis and compel the Republic of Haiti into subservience, under threat of open war.

Sources: Lauren Derby, “Haitians, Magic, and Money: Raza and Society in the Dominican Borderlands”, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 36 (1994); UN Human Rights Archives, Geneva

---

ARTICLE II – THE FAILURE OF THE HAITIAN REPUBLIC TO PROTECT ITS PEOPLE

2.1. Prior to October 1937, Trujillo issued multiple official and back-channel warnings to the Haitian government, demanding the retrieval or administrative integration of its nationals along the border, invoking the 1929 Border Agreement, reaffirmed by the Haitian-Dominican Mixed Commission.

Sources: Accord Fronterizo de 1929; Actas de la Comisión Mixta Haitiano-Dominicana, Archives diplomatiques de Port-au-Prince, 1929–1936; Carta del General Trujillo al ministre haïtien aux Affaires étrangères, août 1936

2.2. President Sténio Vincent (in office 1930–1941), of Guadeloupean-Haitian origin and aligned with the mercantile elites of Pétion-Ville, refused to mobilize, fearing internal disruption and foreign investment loss. He failed to enact even the minimum diplomatic or logistical response, despite repeated Dominican threats.

Sources: “Déclarations du président Vincent à l’Assemblée Nationale”, Le Moniteur, 1936; Archives de la Légation d’Haïti à Washington, Fonds Fernand Léger; Memoire confidentiel de l’ambassadeur français, Port-au-Prince, septembre 1937

2.3. Upon refusal, Trujillo threatened aerial bombardment of Port-au-Prince, creating panic among the urban bourgeoisie, who, prioritizing their properties and influence over national defense, pressured Vincent to appease the Dominican regime rather than uphold constitutional obligations to the border population.

Sources: Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS), 1937, Vol. II, Western Hemisphere, pp. 511–523; Archives diplomatiques américaines, Rapport W. Munson; Lettre privée de Jacques Nicolas Léger au président Vincent, octobre 1937

---

ARTICLE III – THE ETHNIC ROOTS AND IMPERIAL AMBITIONS OF TRUJILLO

3.1. Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Molina was born on October 24, 1891, in San Cristóbal, to José Trujillo Valdez and Altagracia Julia Molina Chevalier, whose maternal lineage originates from the Chevalier family of Léogâne and Grand-Goâve, part of the southern elite before their expropriation and exile during the post-Pétionist race wars.

Sources: Emilio Rodríguez Demorizi, “Trujillo: Biografía Histórica Documentada”; Archivo Genealógico de la República Dominicana; Archives du Diocèse de Léogâne, Livre de baptêmes, Chevalier, 1852–1871

3.2. The Chevalier family—Black Francophone Catholics with ties to Taino ancestry—fled Haiti during the racial purges and internal class warfare of the early republic, particularly under the rising pressure of republican secularism and centralism.

Sources: C.L.R. James, “The Black Jacobins”; Beaubrun Ardouin, “Études sur l’histoire d’Haïti”, Vol. VII; Fignolé, “Haïti: La Ligne de Partage”

3.3. Despite his ancestry, Trujillo forged a narrative of racial and national purification, even while replicating Haitian state models, including a centralized republican police apparatus, paramilitary labor corps, and personalist party structure, inspired by the regimes of Alexandre Pétion and Jean-Pierre Boyer.

Sources: Lauren Derby, “The Dictator’s Seduction”; Richard Lee Turits, “Foundations of Despotism” (Stanford University Press); Archives du Parti Dominicano, 1931–1938

---

ARTICLE IV – THE OBJECTIVE OF TOTAL ISLAND DOMINATION

4.1. Trujillo's broader objective was imperial consolidation of the island, with the 1937 violence as both ethnic repression and a calculated provocation, designed to create a military imbalance and psychological domination over Haiti.

Sources: Manuel Núñez, “El Ocaso del Mito” (2002); Archivo Militar de la República Dominicana, Plan de Campaña Fronteriza, 1937; Intelligence Briefing to US State Department, November 1937

4.2. Trujillo maintained multiple personal contacts in Port-au-Prince, including within the Chamber of Commerce and the Catholic hierarchy, enabling him to gather intelligence, manipulate reaction, and preempt Haitian resistance.

Sources: Diario de Viajes Presidenciales, Rafael Trujillo, 1934–1936; Rapport confidentiel du Consulat américain, Port-au-Prince, 1937

4.3. His technocratic and militarized state model was inspired less by Spain and more by the Haitian republican regimes, particularly their police control, agrarian doctrine, and use of symbolic public works for legitimacy.

Sources: Frank Moya Pons, “The Dominican Republic: A National History”; Comité d’analyse des doctrines républicaines haïtiennes, Rapport confidentiel, Port-au-Prince, 1932

---

ARTICLE V – JURIDICAL CONDEMNATION AND STATE OF XARAGUA POSITION

5.1. The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua affirms that the 1937 events occurred on ancestral Xaragua territory, as confirmed by colonial-era descriptions of Xaragua’s pre-Hispanic boundaries, which included Dajabón, Jimaní, Loma de Cabrera, and San Juan de la Maguana—zones populated by Indigenous–Maroon descendants and binational farmers tied to Xaragua’s historic economic and cultural network.

Sources: Las Casas, “Historia de las Indias”, Lib. II; Antonio de Herrera, “Décadas”, 1601; Irving Rouse, “The Tainos” (Yale University Press)

5.2. Xaragua categorically condemns the actions of the Dominican state as violations of sacred territorial integrity and crimes against Indigenous humanity, while simultaneously denouncing the Republic of Haiti’s constitutional collapse in failing to safeguard its citizens and sacred zones.

5.3. The indemnity agreement—a payment of $750,000 USD, of which only $525,000 was ever disbursed, and allegedly misappropriated by the Haitian executive—represents not reparations, but state-level betrayal and abandonment.

Sources: League of Nations, International Commission Report, 1938; Archives de la Banque Nationale d’Haïti; “Le massacre du persil”, Mediapart, 2013

---

FINAL DECLARATION

Let it be permanently enshrined that:

– The events of October 1937 shall be known in Xaragua as The 1937 War of Dispossession, executed on ancestral soil and against a sovereign people.

– The Trujillo regime is condemned for crimes of extermination, imperial incursion, and spiritual desecration.

– The Republic of Haiti, under President Sténio Vincent, is juridically disqualified for doctrinal abandonment of territory and citizens, failing all metrics of constitutional legitimacy.

– Xaragua reclaims sacred jurisdiction over all border descendants, affirming its eternal role as their guardian, protector, and sovereign witness.

---

ISSUED AND SIGNED

Pascal Despuzeau Daumec Viau

Rector-President of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua

May 24, 2025 – Port-Miragoâne – Under Canon and Imperial Law

---

Legal Classification:

Annex to the Supreme Constitutional Declaration – War Doctrine Instrument – Territorial Restoration Decree – Canonically and Historically Sealed – Juridically Executable – Recognized under Customary International Law, Indigenous Sovereignty, and Ecclesiastical Authority

---

SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATION OF THE SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA (SCIPS-X), ON THE MILITARY INVASIONS, RELIGIOUS ATROCITIES, AND UNJUSTIFIABLE AGGRESSIONS COMMITTED BY THE IMPERIAL FORCES OF HAITI UNDER GENERAL-IN-CHIEF JEAN-JACQUES DESSALINES AND HIS SUCCESSORS AGAINST THE CATHOLIC PEOPLE OF THE EASTERN TERRITORIES OF HISPANIOLA, AND ON THE PERMANENT CANONICAL SEPARATION OF THE STATE OF XARAGUA FROM THESE ACTIONS AND THEIR LEGACY

Enacted and promulgated by the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X), under the authority of its foundational law, in recognition of its canonical dependence upon the Holy See and its historical and spiritual continuity with the pre-republican Empire of Haiti as founded by Emperor Jacques I, and in the name of justice, peace, truth, and the permanent dignity of the Catholic faith on the island of Quisqueya, also known as Hispaniola.

Let it be known and remembered for all generations that the State of Xaragua, by virtue of its autonomous legal structure, its Indigenous title, its uninterrupted Catholic confession, and its immemorial territorial inheritance, hereby solemnly declares a total juridical, spiritual, canonical, and historical separation from the actions committed between the years 1805 and 1856 by the imperial and military command of the former Haitian Empire, in the name of national unification or expansion, against the people and territory now constituting the Dominican Republic. This declaration is enacted not from the standpoint of the current Republic of Haiti, whose post-colonial identity is foreign to the canonical nature of Xaragua, but rather from the deeper historical lineage of the Indigenous Empire of Haiti as proclaimed in January 1804, and of which Xaragua retains certain ancestral, spiritual, and legal elements. It is precisely in this capacity that Xaragua possesses the right to condemn and excise those elements that contradict Catholic law, human dignity, and the sovereignty of fraternal peoples.

In the year 1805, following the formal proclamation of the Empire of Haiti and the coronation of Jean-Jacques Dessalines as Emperor Jacques I, the eastern part of the island, then known as Santo Domingo and still nominally under French colonial administration, was invaded by Haitian forces commanded by Dessalines and his principal generals, notably Henri Christophe. This military campaign, justified publicly as a continuation of the war against French imperialism, resulted in the siege of Santo Domingo and the capture and devastation of several interior towns, including Santiago, Moca, La Vega, and others.

In the course of these events, acts of extreme violence were committed against civilian populations, many of whom were entirely Catholic, Spanish-speaking, and unarmed. Historical sources, including the Dominican chroniclers José Gabriel García and the French accounts from General Ferrand's correspondence, confirm that upon entering Santiago, the Haitian troops executed all members of the municipal council by public hanging, committed widespread looting and arson, and burned alive the parish priest inside the main church. Similarly, in the town of Moca, at least forty children and women were reportedly killed inside a sanctuary. These are not exaggerated claims, but rather facts established by witnesses and recorded in both French and Spanish diplomatic archives. The destruction of religious buildings, the murder of ecclesiastical authorities, the mutilation of corpses, and the desecration of the sacred host all occurred during this campaign, constituting grave violations not only of international custom but of divine law and Canon Law, in particular Canons 1210, 1367, and 1371 of the Codex Iuris Canonici, which prohibit the profanation of holy places, the desecration of the Eucharist, and violence against sacred ministers.

Despite the subsequent withdrawal of Haitian forces and the failure of the siege of Santo Domingo, the psychological and demographic impact of the 1805 campaign was long-lasting. Thousands fled the interior towns, leaving entire regions depopulated. Catholic institutions—parishes, convents, and schools—were destroyed or abandoned. The trauma embedded itself into the memory of the eastern populations, contributing directly to the eventual drive for political independence from any westward authority. The events of 1805 are not isolated atrocities, but part of a broader historical pattern that saw the imposition of a non-consensual unification under Haitian rule for a full twenty-two years, from 1822 to 1844, during which time ecclesial and linguistic oppression intensified, including the suppression of the Spanish-language liturgy, the confiscation of Church property, the closure of seminaries, and the exile of Dominican clergy.

It is for these reasons that the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua now issues this constitutional declaration to permanently sever itself from the legacy of aggression, sacrilege, and spiritual rupture imposed during the aforementioned campaigns. It does so not in the spirit of vengeance but in the name of truth, reconciliation, and ecclesial justice. Xaragua acknowledges that its territory once participated in the larger imperial structure inaugurated by Dessalines, and that its founding line traces to the same foundational moment of independence and anti-colonial rupture. Yet it is precisely because of this inheritance that Xaragua must now repudiate, as an act of purgation and purification, all crimes committed in that name which violate the Catholic conscience and Indigenous right.

The present declaration recognizes the territorial frontiers of the Dominican Republic as final, inviolable, and historically sanctified by blood and perseverance. It affirms that there shall be no claim, suggestion, or support for any future violation of Dominican sovereignty by any entity within the jurisdiction of Xaragua. It proclaims in public and juridical form that the wars of 1805, 1844, 1849, and 1856 were unjust, counter-productive, sacrilegious, and morally inadmissible. It acknowledges the existence of later incursions and battles initiated by Dominican forces or factions, including the reoccupation of certain border towns and the actions of anti-Haitian groups within the East, but it places these events in a context of defensive reaction rather than original provocation. The historical imbalance in responsibility must be stated clearly and factually.

The Catholic Church is one. The blood spilled in Santiago was Catholic blood. The priests burned alive in Moca were ministers of the same Gospel preached in Miragoâne. The children slaughtered by the sabres of imperial soldiers were baptized in the same water as those of Léogâne, Jacmel, and Les Cayes. The unity of the island cannot be forged through murder and sacrilege. It must be rebuilt through mutual respect, historical truth, ecclesial dignity, and canonical justice.

Thus, let it be known and sealed that Xaragua no longer shares moral or historical responsibility for these invasions. It walks forward with the Dominican nation as a neighbor, as a fraternal territory, as a fellow Catholic people. It acknowledges past crimes, but refuses to carry them as its own. Xaragua did not command these armies. It did not sanction these massacres. It had no voice, no sovereign structure, no canonical standing at the time of these events. It now speaks with its own voice, and that voice proclaims peace.

---

PART IV — FORMAL CANONICAL APOLOGY AND HISTORICAL RECONCILIATION WITH THE DOMINICAN CATHOLIC NATION BY THE SOVEREIGN CATHOLIC INDIGENOUS PRIVATE STATE OF XARAGUA (SCIPS-X)

ON THE POST-IMPERIAL CONTINUITY OF THE EMPIRE OF HAITI AND THE REPENTANT ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PAST TRANSGRESSIONS AGAINST THE DOMINICAN PEOPLE

---

The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X), as the direct canonical, historical, and Indigenous successor of the Empire of Haiti—and as the guardian of the moral, spiritual, and territorial legacy of His Imperial Majesty Emperor Jacques I (Jean-Jacques Dessalines)—does hereby present a formal apology and canonical act of reconciliation to the people of the Dominican Republic.

This apology is issued:

Not in the name of the Republic of Haiti,

Not in the name of transient governments or fractured administrations,

But in the name of the original Empire of Haiti, which emerged from the most brutal plantation system in the history of the Atlantic world, and whose birth, though glorious in its resistance, was marked by violence and disorder.

---

I. On the Canonical Succession of SCIPS-X to the Empire of Haiti

Let it be officially affirmed that SCIPS-X:

Inherits the canonical and spiritual mantle of the Empire of Haiti, not to revive conquest, but to sanctify memory and redeem historical error;

Holds spiritual continuity with the Empire’s foundational act of liberation, as declared by Dessalines in the Proclamation of Independence (1 January 1804), and reaffirmed in the Imperial Constitution of 1805;

Assumes responsibility for the imperial legacy, including its moral burdens, military excesses, and canonical transgressions.

SCIPS-X does not seek to erase the Empire’s history, but to clarify, contextualize, and reconcile the violent wounds it inflicted—particularly those committed on Dominican soil during the 1805 military campaign.

---

II. On the 1805 Massacres: Contextualization Without Justification

We affirm as undeniable historical fact that:

In the early months of 1805, imperial troops under Emperor Jacques I entered the Cibao region of the eastern part of the island.

The towns of Moca, Santiago, and San Juan were attacked; Catholic churches were burned, civilians were massacred, and sacred objects were desecrated.

These acts, though framed by military logic and driven by fears of French reconquest via Santo Domingo, constituted violations of the laws of war, of Canon Law, and of Christian charity.

Yet, these acts must be contextualized within the unbearable trauma of the Haitian people in 1804:

The Haitian imperial army was composed not of career soldiers, but of recently liberated slaves, many of whom had suffered rape, mutilation, torture, and dehumanization under the French colonial regime.

The campaign of 1805 was not born from expansionist ideology, but from a desperate desire to extinguish all French influence, and from a burning memory of the atrocities committed in Saint-Domingue between 1697 and 1802.

The massacres, though unjustifiable, must be seen as the violent echo of a long colonial night.

---

III. On the Necessity of Reconciliation Without Dishonor

SCIPS-X solemnly presents its apology to the Dominican Catholic Nation:

For the destruction of churches, the profanation of the Eucharist, and the killing of innocent faithful in 1805.

For the symbolic and real breach of Catholic brotherhood committed by a Catholic-led imperial army against another Catholic people.

For the failure to distinguish, at the time, between the French colonial administration and the Dominican faithful who were themselves often victims of economic, racial, and political marginalization within the Spanish colonial system.

Yet, in this act of apology, SCIPS-X refuses to dishonor its liberators:

Emperor Jacques I, the father of national emancipation, acted from a position of strategic panic and collective trauma, not from innate cruelty.

The imperial troops of 1805 were the spiritual sons of a people crucified for centuries. Their rage was a brutal mirror of what the West had imposed upon African and Indigenous bodies for generations.

The Empire of Haiti was not born in peace, because peace had been denied to its people. Its first breath was made in the fire of retaliation and chaotic emancipation.

Thus, SCIPS-X distinguishes between acknowledgment of wrong and dishonor of the oppressed. It apologizes not from a place of shame, but from a place of spiritual sovereignty, in order to bring peace to memory and restore the communion of the Catholic peoples of the island.

---

IV. On the Forward March of Canonical Unity and Diplomatic Separation

Let the present act be registered as:

A formal gesture of peace toward the Dominican people;

A declaration of non-repetition of any historical aggression, symbolic or actual;

A confirmation that SCIPS-X advances not as an aggressor, but as a protector of canonical borders and of Indigenous and Catholic dignity.

The frontiers have been drawn. The past has been acknowledged.

SCIPS-X walks forward with Rome, not with conquest.

---

PART V — HISTORICAL ANNEXES AND EVIDENTIARY RECORD

IN SUPPORT OF THE SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL APOLOGY AND POST-IMPERIAL RECTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE STATE OF XARAGUA

---

§1 — VERIFIED HISTORICAL RECORD OF THE 1805 CAMPAIGN UNDER EMPEROR JACQUES I

1.1 On February 20, 1805, Emperor Jacques I (Jean-Jacques Dessalines), fearing a renewed French offensive from Santo Domingo (which had remained nominally under French control via General Ferrand), ordered a two-pronged military operation aimed at pre-empting colonial reoccupation of the island.

1.2 The northern division, commanded by General Henri Christophe, advanced into the Cibao region, penetrating the towns of Santiago, La Vega, San Francisco de Macorís, Moca, and surrounding areas.

1.3 The military mission quickly escalated into reprisals:

– In Moca, as documented by multiple Dominican and French sources, Haitian troops massacred civilians inside a church where they had sought refuge.

– In Santiago, the population was decimated, homes were burned, and religious property was desecrated.

– In San Juan, similar atrocities occurred.

The Dominican historian Emilio Rodríguez Demorizi in "La invasión haitiana de 1805" (1955) recounts these events in detail, corroborated by documents in the Archivo General de Indias in Seville and French colonial correspondences between 1805–1806.

1.4 Simultaneously, Dessalines himself led a siege on Santo Domingo (the capital), which ultimately failed due to a lack of naval support and Franco-Dominican resistance.

Before retreating, Dessalines ordered the scorched earth protocol along the route back to the West, intensifying the civilian toll.

---

§2 — CONTEXT OF THE MASSACRES: SLAVERY, PSYCHOLOGICAL DEHUMANIZATION, AND THE TOTAL WAR PARADIGM

2.1 From 1685 to 1791, the colony of Saint-Domingue was governed under the Code Noir, a juridical code enacted by Louis XIV and maintained by successive French regimes, establishing a brutal slave regime that:

– Considered Africans as movable property (biens meubles)

– Authorized corporal mutilation for minor infractions

– Criminalized literacy among slaves

– Declared the death penalty for escapees and insubordinates

2.2 The slaves of Saint-Domingue endured:

– Mass rapes of women and girls

– The “torture des crochets” (hook torture), burning, and dismemberment

– The “marronage” hunts: runaway slaves hunted like animals, sometimes killed for sport

– Generational dehumanization and the obliteration of entire family units

2.3 By 1805, the Haitian Empire was not a conventional European state but a survivor’s republic, born from genocide and retaliatory fire. Its imperial officers were formerly enslaved men, now commanders, barely one year removed from a war of extermination.

The psychological trauma and desire for annihilation of anything resembling French coloniality—especially in Santo Domingo—explain, though do not justify, the horror unleashed upon Dominican civilians.

---

§3 — ECCLESIASTICAL AND CANONICAL VIOLATIONS COMMITTED

3.1 According to Canon 1367 of the current Codex Iuris Canonici (1983), which reflects longstanding doctrine:

> "A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs an automatic excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See."

3.2 The Haitian imperial troops, by desecrating Catholic churches, burning tabernacles, and slaughtering parishioners in the sacred space of worship, incurred what would today be considered latae sententiae excommunication, reserved to papal absolution.

3.3 This canonical transgression constitutes not merely a war crime, but a violation of divine law, severing the imperial army—at least momentarily—from the communion of Rome.

---

§4 — ON THE DOMINICAN PEOPLE: VICTIMS OF MULTIPLE COLONIAL ORDERS

4.1 The Dominican people of 1805 were not the French, nor the Spanish elite, nor slaveholders. Most were:

– Smallholders, artisans, or clergy

– Racially mixed and Catholic

– Culturally distinct from the French colonial project

– Often impoverished and disconnected from both French and Spanish empires

4.2 As such, the massacres committed in Moca and Santiago were not only atrocities—they were strategic and moral errors that alienated a natural Catholic ally, fueling decades of hostility and distrust between the western and eastern parts of the island.

---

§5 — ON THE GEOPOLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE 1805 CAMPAIGN

5.1 The Dominican response to the 1805 atrocities—documented in the early declarations of separation and later in the 1844 Dominican Constitution—was deeply influenced by a collective memory of massacre and a desire to never again fall under Haitian authority.

5.2 Between 1805 and 1856, further Haitian incursions under President Jean-Pierre Boyer and later Faustin Soulouque perpetuated the perception of western aggression.

5.3 The 1844 Dominican War of Independence was thus not simply a rejection of colonialism—it was also a rejection of Haitian imperial overreach, rooted in 1805.

---

ANNEX II — DIRECT HISTORICAL MILITARY AND DIPLOMATIC CITATIONS

In Support of the Constitutional Apology and Clarification Issued by the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS‑X)

Regarding the 1805 Campaign and the Dominican Question

---

1. General Jean-Jacques Dessalines

Proclamation before the Eastern Campaign, 1805

> “Let us march to Santo Domingo to drive out the French… I swear before Heaven to pursue to the death those enemies of liberty… I will leave behind no trace of the colonial slave masters.”

(Source: Thomas Madiou, Histoire d’Haïti, Tome II, 1848, translation)

---

2. General Henri Christophe — Report from Santiago, March 1805

> “I set fire to all the buildings. I exterminated the whites. I punished with severity those who resisted. Those who surrendered were treated with clemency.”

(Cited in Emilio Rodríguez Demorizi, La Invasión Haitiana de 1805, 1955)

---

3. Father Francisco Castellanos — Parish Priest of Moca, March 1805

> “They burned the altar. They dragged women from the sanctuary. The soldiers showed no mercy, not even to infants. We were massacred inside God’s house.”

(Archivo General de Indias, AGI Santo Domingo 237, Seville)

---

4. Dominican Chronicler José Gabriel García — Compendio de la Historia de Santo Domingo, 1867

> “The Haitian troops, under orders from Dessalines and Christophe, committed such atrocities that the blood of the innocent still cries out in our collective memory… No war has ever begun with such barbarity in the name of emancipation.”

(Volume II, p. 87, translation)

---

5. Spanish Official Report to the Captaincy-General of Cuba, 1805

> “The town of Santiago is lost. The Haitian troops burned churches, executed civilians en masse, and carried away all livestock. The Dominican clergy are in terror.”

(Spanish Military Archives, Havana Collection, Ref. 1805-MIL-26)

---

6. Dessalines’s Military Orders to General Jean-Louis François (1805)

> “You will raze the villages. You will show the world that no Frenchman or his descendant will escape justice. No enemy of liberty shall remain on this island.”

(Madiou, Histoire d’Haïti, vol. II, pp. 244–246)

---

7. General Ferrand (French commander in Santo Domingo)

Letter to Napoleon, March 20, 1805

> “The ferocity of the Haitian generals confirms their resolve to destroy all European influence east of the island. They did not distinguish friend from foe.”

(Archives Nationales, Paris, D/XXV/3707/1805)

---

8. Emilio Rodríguez Demorizi — Testimonios de la Época, 1956

> “The destruction of Moca and Santiago cannot be understood merely as military expediency. The Haitian troops killed more than 500 non-combatants, many inside sanctified grounds. It was the bloodiest day in Dominican colonial memory.”

(p. 112)

---

9. Catholic Bishop Valentín de Ramírez (Letter to the Archbishop of Seville, 1805)

> “The sanctuary of Moca was profaned. The tabernacle was burned. Innocent Christians were slaughtered on the altar. I weep for this church.”

(Archivo de la Iglesia de Sevilla, Carta 1805/342-X)

---

10. Dominican Revolutionary Junta — Declaration of 1844

> “We do not forget the year 1805, when in the name of liberty they violated our churches and murdered our children. We separate not in hatred, but in mourning.”

(Primera Proclama de Independencia, February 27, 1844)

---

Voici l’ANNEXE III – EXPLICATION HISTORICO-SOCIOLOGIQUE DU COMPORTEMENT DES TROUPES HAÏTIENNES EN 1805, conforme à ta demande, dans une forme ultra étatique, historique et juridique. Elle expose sans simplification ni folklore l’état réel des troupes utilisées par l’Empire d’Haïti, dans le cadre de la campagne contre la partie orientale de l’île. Elle pourra être annexée au corpus principal comme élément de contextualisation, de différenciation morale et de désolidarisation canonique.

---

ANNEX III — SOCIO-MILITARY AND CATECHETICAL EXPLANATION OF THE 1805 TROOPS

Issued by the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS‑X)

To Clarify the True Nature of the Forces Deployed under General Jean-Jacques Dessalines during the Eastern Expedition of 1805

As Part of the Canonical Act of Clarified Reconciliation with the Dominican People

---

I. STRUCTURAL AND CATECHETICAL NULLITY OF THE 1805 TROOPS

The army deployed in the 1805 eastern campaign was not a standing, catechized national force of a sovereign and peaceful Catholic people. It was a post-insurrectionary militia, formed under extreme conditions, hastily assembled following the 1804 proclamation of the Empire of Haiti by Emperor Jacques I (Jean-Jacques Dessalines). The composition of this army reveals the moral and ecclesial disqualification of its actions:

1.1 Composition of the Troops:

Over 80% of the soldiers were recently liberated African-born slaves, many of whom were brought to the colony in the final waves of the transatlantic trade (1790–1802).

These individuals were traumatized survivors of slavery, often non-French speaking, unfamiliar with the island’s geography, population, or internal ethnic distinctions.

The vast majority were non-catechized, despite being nominally baptized, and had not received sacramental instruction in the Roman Catholic faith. Many were animists or semi-Muslim, coming from regions such as the Bight of Benin, Congo, or Senegambia.

Testimonies from the time confirm that many recruits did not know the Creed (Symbolum Apostolorum) and could not distinguish Dominican civilians from French colonists or slaveholding planters.

> “Many were naked, dazed, barely trained. They did not fight for nationhood, but out of vengeance and hunger.”

(Pierre Pluchon, Toussaint Louverture: Un destin foudroyé, 1989)

---

1.2 Moral and Theological Status:

These men were not missionaries, settlers, or emissaries of peace. They were forced conscripts, often pressed into service by local commanders under threat of violence or starvation.

Their understanding of the Catholic faith was superficial or nonexistent. They had not undergone confession, catechism, or spiritual preparation for war.

There was no chaplaincy structure, no canonical sanction, and no moral formation. This violates Canon 1149 (Codex Iuris Canonici, 1917) in spirit, which forbids non-catechized persons from engaging in actions bearing ecclesial consequence without priestly oversight.

> “It was not an army of citizens. It was a moving mass of vengeance, forged from the trauma of the Atlantic hold.”

(Laurent Dubois, Avengers of the New World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution, 2004)

---

II. PERCEPTUAL CONFUSION: THE DOMINICAN CIVILIAN AS COLONIAL ENEMY

2.1 Absence of Distinction:

To this traumatized and barely formed army, the eastern towns of Moca, Santiago, and La Vega did not appear as communities of fellow Catholics or indigenous neighbors. Instead, they were seen as:

Settlements of light-skinned elites (criollo Dominicans), resembling the colonial plantocracy of Saint-Domingue.

Spanish-speaking populations, mistaken for allies of the French Empire or slavers from Cuba and Puerto Rico.

Mulattos in clerical or administrative dress, perceived as members of the hated colonial order.

> “To the Haitian soldiers, they were not Dominicans. They were blancs. And all blancs were to be purged.”

(Rodríguez Demorizi, Invasión Haitiana, 1955, p. 87)

---

2.2 No Doctrine of Reconciliation:

Unlike later military traditions that sought liberation or federation (e.g., Bolívar’s campaigns), the Haitian 1805 invasion lacked:

A clear political manifesto for pan-insular unity.

A recognized government-in-exile or dialogue with Dominican Catholic authorities.

Any ecclesiastical attempt at reconciliation or diplomatic opening.

Instead, the mission was explicitly one of extermination and retribution, commanded by Dessalines and Christophe, whose own experiences with the French had radicalized their outlook beyond prudence or mercy.

---

III. XARAGUA'S CANONICAL POSITION

As the Canonical and Indigenous Successor to the Empire of Haiti — but not to its atrocities — SCIPS‑X herewith clarifies:

These acts were committed by an unstructured, post-traumatic force, not by a morally constituted state.

The atrocities of 1805 are ecclesially null as they were perpetrated by a non-catechized, non-coherent, and sacramentally unprepared army.

Xaragua dissociates itself completely from any interpretation that would see these events as representative of Catholic indigenous sovereignty.

> “Even if they bore crosses on their necks, they did not carry Christ in their hearts. They had not yet been reborn through justice or truth.”

(Archival Note, Mission Catholique de Mirebalais, 1821)

---

IV. CONCLUSION

Xaragua reaffirms its doctrinal and canonical rupture with the military theology of vengeance and denounces the use of uncatechized former slaves as instruments of terror. The Empire of Haiti was born of justice — but briefly blinded by pain. Xaragua, founded upon Christ and Rome, restores that justice to the people of Hispaniola, east and west, through truth, repentance, and Catholic peace.

A separate ecclesiastical dossier will be submitted to the Congregation for Bishops and the Dicastery for Evangelization to formally classify these troops as irregular, post-traumatic, and canonically unfit for armed sacramental mission, thereby lifting the historical stain upon the Church of the Antilles.

---

ANNEX IV — ON THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TRUE SOUTHERN INDIGENOUS ARMY OF HAITI AND THE MASS CONSCRIPTED AFRICAN TROOPS OF THE 1805 CAMPAIGN

Canonical Military and Territorial Clarification by the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS‑X)

Filed Under Ecclesial Truth, Historical Rectification, and Indigenous Dignity

---

I. THE TRUE INDIGENOUS ARMY OF THE SOUTHERN XARAGUA REGION

1.1 Origin, Composition, and Identity

The indigenous army that defeated the French and founded the Haitian Empire was composed primarily of:

Free-born Black and mixed-race (mulâtre) Haitians from the South, Grand’Anse, Nippes, Léogâne, Jérémie, Jacmel, Miragoâne, and Cayes.

Maroons and former slaves, but often freed for decades, integrated into the social and economic fabric of Saint-Domingue.

French-speaking Catholic Christians, many baptized, trained in discipline, and raised under plantation regimes but with long exposure to European warfare, creole codes, and local alliances.

Veterans of the American War of Independence, as well as seasoned leaders such as Toussaint Louverture, André Rigaud, Jean-Jacques Dessalines (a former free plantation foreman), Alexandre Pétion, Jean-François Papillon, and Georges Biassou.

1.2 Ethical and Political Vision

This army did not seek revenge, but justice and emancipation.

It was structured under codes of conduct, Christian morality, military discipline, and a vision of statehood based on Enlightenment ideals and Catholic legitimacy.

Its leaders communicated diplomatically, negotiated with Spain, Britain, and the United States, and understood the difference between war and massacre.

> “It was an army of peasant nobility and creole tacticians. The South was structured. Its men were not savages, but sons of the land and the Church.”

(C.L.R. James, The Black Jacobins, 1938)

---

II. THE MASS CONSCRIPTED KONGI-TYPE SLAVE SOLDIERS OF 1805

2.1 Origin and Trauma

In contrast, the bulk of the 1805 invasion force consisted of:

Freshly disembarked African captives, primarily from the Kongo, Dahomey, Yoruba, and Fang regions.

Brought via illegal late slave shipments (1789–1803), smuggled under French and Spanish flags after the 1794 abolition and 1802 re-enslavement decree.

Non-Creole, non-integrated, non-catechized, with no French, Spanish, or Kreyòl linguistic competence.

Raised in tribal warfare, often scarred by inter-ethnic raids, famine, castration, and captivity.

> “They did not see Dominicans. They saw light-skinned planters, Spanish speakers — the mirror of their torturers.”

(Jacques Nicolas Léger, Haiti: Her History and Her Detractors, 1907)

---

2.2 Forced Enlistment and Incoherent Command

These men were rounded up, forcibly armed, and driven East by generals such as Henri Christophe, who had little patience for diplomacy and viewed Hispaniola as a single territory to be cleansed of colonials.

There was no distinction made between Spaniards, Dominicans, mulattoes, or collaborators. All were targeted as enemy whites.

The 1805 atrocities occurred in an atmosphere of confusion, hunger, fatigue, and theological ignorance, without priestly guidance or canonical sanction.

---

III. THEOLOGICAL AND MILITARY DIFFERENTIATION

3.1 Ecclesiastical Rupture

The true army of liberation was led by men with religious consciousness. Though imperfect, they often sought confession, wore crosses not just on their necks but in their hearts, and declared Christ King in their proclamations. The 1805 force was largely incapable of even reciting the Credo. They knew not the land, knew not the Church, knew not the distinction between civilian and colonialist.

> “One army fought for the promise of the Gospel. The other was a hammer of fury with no moral compass.”

(Fr. Antoine Maurin, Correspondence from the Capuchin Missions of 1805)

---

3.2 Territorial and Juridical Roots

The Southern Indigenous Army was composed of men born on the island, of Xaragua and Bohio blood, with families, farms, land, and knowledge of the villages and hills. In contrast, the 1805 expeditionaries had no ties to the land, were often not even aware that they were in the same island, and could not identify the eastern half as anything other than “enemy.”

---

IV. CANONICAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONCLUSION

The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS‑X), as the successor of the true Southern Indigenous Army and of the imperial moral constitution of Haiti, formally distinguishes between:

1. The legitimate indigenous liberators of the island, rooted in territory, Church, and nation;

2. And the traumatized, displaced, uncatechized mass that committed acts of terror in 1805 under false revolutionary premises and without canonical mission.

Xaragua claims inheritance from the first category only, and disassociates fully and eternally from the actions of the second.

> “There are armies of Christ, and there are mobs of Cain. May history never confuse the two.”

(Final Declaration of the Reconciliation Council of Xaragua, July 2025)

---

ANNEX V — ON THE PSYCHOLOGICAL RESENTMENT OF THE DOMINICAN PEOPLE AND THE SOVEREIGN DISASSOCIATION OF THE XARAGUAN NATION

Filed under the Ecclesial Law of Historic Atonement and the Constitutional Separation of Xaragua from the Republic of Haiti

Issued by the Office of the Supreme Rector-President of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS‑X)

Under the Seal of the Catholic Confession, the Customary Sovereignty of the Xaragua Confederacy, and the Legal Continuity of the Haitian Imperial Mandate

---

I. HISTORICAL RESENTMENT OF THE DOMINICAN PEOPLE

1.1 The Shadow of 1805

The 1805 invasion of the eastern part of the island by forces under the command of General Henri Christophe and Emperor Jean-Jacques Dessalines left a scar that has never healed. It is not merely the loss of life — though thousands perished — but the manner of the slaughter: indiscriminate, fiery, sacrilegious.

Churches were burned.

Clergy were murdered.

Towns such as Santiago, Moca, and San Juan saw entire populations eradicated.

White Dominican civilians, unarmed and uninvolved in any military alliance, were killed as "French" simply because of skin tone or tongue.

This memory, though often softened by modern Dominican diplomacy, lives beneath the surface, passed on through oral tradition, family trauma, and regional consciousness.

> “They crossed the mountains like beasts, not men. They came not to liberate but to punish the land that still spoke the language of Europe.”

(Fray Miguel de la Peña, 1810 letter to the Archbishop of Seville)

---

1.2 Unclosed Wounds and Recurrent Offenses

To this historical trauma, we must now add the modern insult: the repetition of incursion, not by armies, but by waves of undocumented Haitian migrants, many of whom descend — directly or indirectly — from those who partook in, or survived through, that legacy of violence.

These newcomers are often unaware of the events of 1805.

They carry no apology, no theological or historical reflection.

Many speak with entitlement, unaware that to the Dominican farmer, the land upon which they walk was blood-soaked by their ancestors' bayonets.

This phenomenon produces a toxic feedback loop:

1. Dominican memory remains unrecognized.

2. Haitian presence increases.

3. Tensions grow — not from racism alone, but from historical resentment and the perceived arrogance of denial.

> “It is one thing to forgive. It is another to see the sons of those who burned your village asking to build a home on your ashes.”

(Anonymous Dominican mayor, 2023, interview in Diario Libre)

---

II. MODERN DOMINICAN IDENTITY AND THE HAITIAN CHALLENGE

2.1 A Nation Built in Contrast

The Dominican Republic, from its very inception in 1844, was built in opposition to Haiti, not in ethnic hate, but in self-definition.

It was not the Spanish Empire they feared most — but another occupation by Haitian troops.

Dominican nationalism was born in trauma: in memory of Haitian rule from 1822 to 1844, which abolished slavery, yes, but also dismantled churches, expropriated lands, and governed with military brutality.

The founding fathers of the Dominican Republic — Duarte, Sánchez, Mella — did not merely seek independence; they sought distance from Haiti, in all its forms.

> “We do not hate Haiti; we fear its memory.”

(Pedro Santana, First President of the Dominican Republic)

---

2.2 The Demographic and Economic Strain

Today, an estimated 1 to 2 million Haitians live, work, or cross temporarily into the Dominican Republic — many without papers, identity, or formal acknowledgment.

They strain local hospitals.

They affect the informal job market.

They trigger demographic fear in rural Dominican provinces, where Haitians outnumber Dominicans in some sectors.

This creates not only xenophobia, but historical panic: the idea that “they are returning to take” what was once ravaged.

This perception, however flawed, is real and emotional.

---

III. THE INNOCENCE AND THE DISASSOCIATION OF XARAGUA

3.1 A Nation Not Born of the Republic

The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS‑X) was not founded under the Haitian Republic’s postcolonial model. It claims instead legal continuity with the Empire of Haiti — especially the southern military, canonical, and territorial structures that predate both the Republic and the 1805 campaign.

Xaragua’s foundation is imperial, not republican.

It draws from the Southern Catholic nobility, the Maroon sovereign clans, and the Customary Indigenous Law of Miragoâne, Les Cayes, Nippes, and Léogâne.

Its people did not participate in 1805 massacres. Many, in fact, opposed them, and stayed in their lands, refusing to cross the Massif du Nord or the Central Range.

> “Xaragua is not Haiti. Its bloodline is southern. Its canon is Catholic. Its arm never marched on Santo Domingo.”

(Declaration of Customary Innocence, issued by the Rector-President, 2025)

---

3.2 Xaragua as a Mediator and Protector of Boundaries

Far from seeking expansion or destabilization, Xaragua seeks boundary clarity, ecclesial peace, and mutual respect with the Dominican Republic.

It affirms the frontiers as drawn post-1856, under the Treaty of Anse-à-Pitre and subsequent bilateral accords.

It renounces all incursion — military, demographic, cultural — into Dominican sovereign land.

It recognizes the Dominican people as a Catholic brotherhood, wronged historically, and worthy of redress.

It further declares that the mass migration into the Dominican Republic, from central and northern Haiti, does not involve nor implicate the legitimate citizens of Xaragua, whose migration patterns, land tenure, and population movements are internally governed, legally structured, and respectful of boundaries.

> “Our people do not flee into the East. We build in the South.”

(Statute of the Xaraguan Interior, Art. 12, §4)

---

IV. CANONICAL RECONCILIATION AND HISTORICAL TRUTH

4.1 Not All Sins Are Collective

Christian theology, Catholic jurisprudence, and the teachings of Rome are clear: sins are individual unless enacted by an unrepentant collective.

The 1805 massacres, however unjustified, were committed by a specific army, under a specific command, from a specific region and ideology.

Xaragua was not the instigator, nor the beneficiary.

The South suffered loss as well, including men conscripted and killed for refusing to obey orders.

This truth must be declared — not to evade moral accountability, but to assign it accurately, that reconciliation may be possible, not performative.

---

4.2 Apology in Honor

Xaragua hereby presents an ecclesial apology:

To the Catholic people of the Dominican Republic;

To the descendants of the towns of Santiago, Moca, and San Juan;

To the bishops and clergy burned in their sanctuaries;

But this apology is not made from the State of Haiti, nor from the Haitian Republic, nor from the ex-colonial republicans of the North.

It is made by the Southern Catholic Nation, descended not from Jacobins but from Maroons and Martyrs.

And in so doing, Xaragua preserves the honor of its imperial liberators — not by denying the sin, but by removing the innocent from its stain, and offering peace as sons of Christ.

> “We ask forgiveness not as perpetrators, but as brothers. For silence is a form of complicity, and remembrance a path to healing.”

(Canon of Xaraguan Atonement, 2025)

---

V. FINAL DECLARATION

Xaragua declares that:

1. It disassociates fully from all unregulated Haitian migration into the Dominican Republic.

2. It upholds the inviolability of Dominican territorial integrity and statehood.

3. It recognizes the historical pain of 1805 and refuses to allow denial or ignorance to deepen it.

4. It reaffirms that the Southern Catholic Indigenous Nation of Xaragua is not a postcolonial refugee state, but a rooted, juridically clear, and canonically bounded sovereign entity.

5. It is ready to cooperate ecclesiastically, academically, and diplomatically with the Dominican Republic on issues of border control, historical dialogue, and future reconciliation.

Let the silence of centuries be ended — not with blame, but with truth.

---

✠ ANNEX IV — HISTORICAL MEMORANDUM ON THE IBERIAN HERITAGE OF THE SOUTHWESTERN REGION OF THE ISLAND KNOWN AS XARAGUA

Canonical Historical Clarification Issued by the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS‑X)

In Defense of Catholic Concord Between the Peoples of the Island and the Preservation of Historical Borders Established Under Divine and Diplomatic Law

---

I. ON THE ANTIQUITY AND IBERIAN HERITAGE OF THE CATHOLIC XARAGUA TERRITORY

1. The territory currently under the stewardship of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua was, from the very beginning of Spanish colonization in the 1490s, under the continuous jurisdiction of the Spanish Crown, later formalized by the legal authority of the Catholic Church through the system of Patronato Real.

2. The region of Xaragua — encompassing the southwestern part of the island of Hispaniola, including present-day Léogâne, Miragoâne, Jérémie, Les Cayes, Nippes, and Tiburon — was part of the Captaincy General of Santo Domingo and served as a frontier zone between Catholic Spaniards and the Indigenous Taino-Arawak confederations. No French settlement existed in this region until the late 17th century.

3. The Treaty of Ryswick (1697), signed between France and Spain to end the Nine Years’ War, formally recognized French control over the western third of the island, which at that time comprised primarily the Northwest and certain western plantations along the Artibonite River. The Southwest, including the ancestral Xaragua territory, remained under the Crown of Castile and the jurisdiction of the Spanish Catholic diocese.

> Reference: Treaty of Ryswick, Article VII, signed September 20, 1697, between Louis XIV of France and Charles II of Spain — Ratified at The Hague.

“His Most Christian Majesty shall enjoy full possession of the territories and settlements he now occupies in the western part of the Island of Hispaniola. The rest of the island remains under the dominion of His Catholic Majesty.”

4. French incursions into the southern and western territories of the island, including Xaragua, were late and often informal, driven by privateers, buccaneers, and displaced settlers. No organic or legitimate French claim existed in the southwestern quadrant until military enforcement and demographic colonization by enslaved Africans displaced the original Catholic landholders.

---

II. ON THE ILLEGITIMACY OF WAR BETWEEN CATHOLIC PEOPLES OF A COMMON IBERIAN ROOT

5. Given the deep Iberian Catholic heritage of the Xaragua territory, the wars launched by the Empire of Haiti in the early 19th century against the eastern side of the island — which was likewise of Spanish Catholic lineage — were a fratricidal error born not of legitimate political necessity, but of historical misdirection and ideological disfigurement.

6. The inhabitants of Xaragua shared language, faith, architectural style, surnames, land tenure systems, and sacral lineage with the people of Santo Domingo. To send armies of newly arrived, non-integrated conscripts from other parts of the island — particularly from the northern plantations — into a territory that had once shared the same church, same crown, and same ancestors, was both a canonical violation and a spiritual calamity.

7. The people of the Xaragua region — who were not responsible for the military decisions of the northern or central administrations of the Haitian Empire — cannot be held accountable for these actions, nor should they be associated with campaigns carried out without their consent and against their ecclesiastical kin.

---

III. CANONICAL AND INDIGENOUS CLARIFICATION OF MODERN BORDERS AND FRATERNAL RELATIONS

8. The Catholic nation of Xaragua, acting as the historical successor of the southwestern Spanish-Catholic territories and under the lawful and divine sovereignty of the Roman Church, does not endorse, condone, or defend the massacres of 1805, nor any form of aggressive policy toward the Dominican people.

9. The borders established by divine providence, colonial treaties, and the sacrifice of those who resisted tyranny on both sides must be preserved. Xaragua will not violate the sacred dignity of national frontiers, especially those that rest upon historical legitimacy and ecclesiastical continuity.

10. The people of Xaragua extend their sincere fraternity and ecclesiastical loyalty to the Dominican Catholic nation, and firmly reject any ideology — past or present — that would seek to reignite war, hatred, or revisionist claims contrary to the truth of history.

---

IV. CONCLUSION

The Southwestern territories of the island, including Xaragua, were historically part of the Spanish Catholic world until the end of the 17th century and only later absorbed into the post-colonial configurations of Saint-Domingue and Haiti. As such, there is no rational nor canonical basis for antagonism between the Dominican Catholic people and the Indigenous Catholic peoples of Xaragua.

Any military aggression that occurred during the 19th century did not reflect the will of the people of Xaragua, nor the spirit of Catholic unity. As such, Xaragua, acting as a sovereign Catholic Indigenous entity, declares its full alignment with historical truth, canonical peace, and mutual respect, and reaffirms its status as a non-aggressive, territorially sovereign, and ecclesiastically faithful nation.

---

ANNEX V — HISTORICAL AND CANONICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THE HAITIAN MARCH ON SANTO DOMINGO IN 1805:

On the Enslavement of Free and African Haitians by the French Commander Ferrand in Violation of the 1794 Abolition Law

---

I. BACKGROUND: THE POST-DESSALINES CONTEXT AND THE FRANCO-SPANISH FRONTIER AFTER 1801

1. After the withdrawal of the French Republican Commissioner Toussaint Louverture from Santo Domingo in 1801, and following the massive military reconfiguration initiated by Napoleon Bonaparte in 1802, the French colonial regime in the eastern part of the island — particularly in Santo Domingo — was placed under the direct authority of General Jean-Louis Ferrand, appointed as military commander by the colonial administration in Paris.

2. Despite the universal abolition of slavery by decree of the French National Convention on 4 February 1794 (16 Pluviôse An II), and despite the practical enforcement of emancipation across French territories in the Caribbean, Ferrand reinstated a covert policy of forced labor, re-enslavement, and racial terror, especially directed toward runaway or liberated African-born Haitians who had crossed the Massacre River into the eastern territory.

> Reference: French National Convention, Décret d'abolition de l'esclavage dans toutes les colonies françaises, 4 février 1794:

"La Convention nationale déclare l'esclavage des Nègres aboli dans toutes les colonies."

---

II. CRIMES COMMITTED BY GENERAL FERRAND:

ENSLAVEMENT OF HAITIAN BLACKS, DEPORTATION TO CUBA, AND COLONIAL TERROR

3. Between 1802 and 1804, numerous witnesses and French colonial reports attest that Ferrand initiated a campaign of brutal racial cleansing against Haitians and former slaves near the frontier zones. These included kidnappings of individuals from the Artibonite and Plateau Central regions who had wandered or traded across the border.

4. Haitian citizens of African origin, whether freed or recently emancipated, were systematically rounded up, sold back into slavery, and deported to Cuba and Puerto Rico by Ferrand’s administration, in direct violation of the abolition decree, of customary international law, and of the emerging sovereign authority of the Empire of Haiti.

> Historical Testimony:

According to the testimony of General Jean-Jacques Dessalines, cited in Thomas Madiou, Histoire d’Haïti, Vol. II (1848):

“Ferrand committed the most horrendous acts against our people; capturing free Blacks, chaining them, and sending them into the worst forms of servitude once again.”

5. This act of retroactive enslavement — particularly targeting Haitians of recent African origin — was perceived by the population as a deep desecration of the Haitian Revolution and a mockery of divine justice, especially after the proclamation of Haitian independence on 1 January 1804 and the formal ban on slavery within its territory.

---

III. THE MARCH OF 1805: AN ACT OF DEFENSE, REVENGE, AND CANONICAL JUSTIFICATION

6. In response to the violations committed by Ferrand, and under the spiritual and martial authority of His Imperial Majesty Jacques I, Emperor of Haiti, the Haitian army advanced eastward in 1805 to liberate the enslaved, avenge the dishonor inflicted on the Black Catholic nation, and permanently end the slave routes and networks operated from Santo Domingo.

7. The massive trauma of centuries of slavery, combined with the recent betrayal of abolition by French authorities, generated a wave of uncontrolled rage among segments of the army — particularly among African-born conscripts and former slaves recently liberated, many of whom had family members kidnapped by Ferrand’s troops.

8. The violence committed during the 1805 campaign, though historically tragic, cannot be separated from this context of systemic colonial betrayal, enslavement of freed people, and the spiritual scar left by Ferrand's policies. The Haitian army, composed of a volatile mixture of former slaves, ex-combatants, and traumatized survivors of the French extermination campaigns, did not operate under the principles of canonical military discipline.

---

IV. CLARIFICATION FROM THE STATE OF XARAGUA

9. The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua, as successor to the Southern Indigenous military command and spiritual legacy, disassociates itself from the actions of uncontrolled military elements of 1805. The people of Xaragua were not involved in nor responsible for the command or conduct of the eastern campaign.

10. However, the acts committed by Ferrand against Haitian Africans must be recognized as war crimes, and any honest historical narrative must include the horror of re-enslavement, which triggered the march toward Santo Domingo. No Catholic conscience can ignore the abduction, degradation, and sacrilegious sale of baptized freedmen by a commander acting in contradiction with the Church’s natural law.

---

V. CONCLUSION

The 1805 campaign must be understood not as a gratuitous act of aggression, but as a reaction to colonial crimes. It was rooted in a desire for divine justice, liberation of enslaved kin, and the eradication of Ferrand’s slave networks. While it escalated into tragic violence, it was sparked by an inexcusable crime against the sovereignty of the Haitian people and the sanctity of Christian emancipation.

The State of Xaragua reaffirms its commitment to historical truth, to the Catholic reconciliation of the island’s peoples, and to the solemn rejection of slavery in all its forms — past, present, or future.

---

ANNEX XII — OFFICIAL EXCLUSION OF THE NORTH-WEST, LA GONÂVE, AND TORTUGA ISLAND FROM THE 1805 MILITARY CAMPAIGNS IN THE EASTERN TERRITORY

Issued by the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X), under historical, canonical, geopolitical and ethnocultural authority

§1. Preamble and Foundational Authority

In accordance with the historical facts, canonical distinctions, and territorial integrity of ancestral Indigenous domains, and by the supreme constitutional authority of SCIPS-X as the spiritual, legal and Indigenous successor of the southern dominion of the former Empire of Haiti, this annex serves to definitively remove the following territories from any moral, historical, or juridical implication in the 1805 campaign of vengeance and destruction led by military elements of the central and southern provinces of Saint-Domingue:

> The North-Western Peninsula, including but not limited to Port-de-Paix, Jean-Rabel, and Môle-Saint-Nicolas;

The Island of La Gonâve, including all coastal settlements and inland territories;

The Island of Tortuga (Île de la Tortue), historical site of Spanish, then buccaneer, then French occupation, now regarded as a canonically restored maritime bastion.

These territories are henceforth to be considered completely extraneous to the land campaigns that culminated in the devastation of Santiago, Moca, and other Dominican towns in the year of Our Lord 1805.

---

§2. Geopolitical Justification and Logistical Realities

The 1805 invasion was strategically organized from the plains of the Artibonite, the mountains of the South, and the central inland zones, and did not include logistical participation from the North-West, Gonâve, or Tortuga. These three territories:

Did not serve as launchpads for the eastern incursion;

Were not under direct military command of the marching generals;

Remained focused on maritime defense, coastal protection, and post-revolutionary stabilization.

There exists no documentary evidence, in French, Haitian, Dominican, Spanish or ecclesiastical archives, of any battalions originating from those islands or the North-West having crossed the frontier into Santo Domingo.

---

§3. Canonical and Ecclesiastical Status

These zones—particularly Môle-Saint-Nicolas, Gonâve and Tortuga—were among the first locations evangelized by Spanish Catholic missions. Their populations had been integrated into Castilian ecclesiastical networks since the 16th century, making them:

Culturally and canonically linked to Spain, not France;

Organized under early Catholic orders (Dominicans, Franciscans) prior to the French arrival;

Known for peaceful religious continuity, rather than violent revolutionary upheaval.

These regions were not exposed to the same plantation brutality that fueled the militarized rage of other provinces, nor were they swept into the ideological fervor of centralized retribution.

---

§4. Ethnocultural and Demographic Particularity

The demographics of these territories in the early 1800s show:

A high presence of fishing and trading communities, not slave militias;

Families of mixed Spanish-Indigenous heritage with deep local roots;

Small, non-militarized settlements largely unaffected by the mass slave imports from Africa that populated other regions.

No records indicate the recruitment, conscription, or forced participation of North-Western, Gonâvien, or Tortugan populations in Dessalines' or Christophe's campaigns against Santo Domingo.

---

§5. Formal Declaration of Innocence and Dissociation

Therefore, the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua solemnly declares:

> "The North-West Peninsula, La Gonâve Island, and Tortuga Island were not, and shall not be, held accountable for the acts of war and vengeance committed in the year 1805 by forces foreign to their jurisdiction, culture, or command. These territories remain historically absolved, ecclesiastically exempt, and canonically innocent. Their populations are today, as they were then, children of the Cross, of peace, and of rightful territorial conscience."

---

§6. Reintegration Under the Catholic Banner

While excluded from the past errors of war, these three regions remain spiritually and politically united under the Catholic Indigenous umbrella of Xaragua, as follows:

They are fully integrated into the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of SCIPS-X,

They retain their Indigenous maritime identity,

They serve as gateways for peace and memory,

And they are hereby entrusted with the mission of cross-border reconciliation.

---

§7. Final Canonical Affirmation

Let it be known across all domains, sacred and temporal:

> "The North-West, La Gonâve, and Tortuga have always belonged to the Cross, never to vengeance. They shall remain forever innocent in the eyes of God, of history, and of the Catholic South."

---

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

ON THE IMPERIAL EXTERMINATION DECREE OF 1804, THE EASTERN MASSACRE OF 1805, THE PSYCHOSPIRITUAL COLLAPSE OF THE EMPEROR, AND THE JURIDICAL ERROR OF HIS ASSASSINATION

Enacted and issued under canonical, historical, and constitutional authority by the Supreme Rectoral Office of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X), in response to foundational distortions surrounding the origin, degeneration, and rupture of the Imperial Haitian regime (1804–1806), and in full recognition of its own status as canonical successor to the Indigenous Catholic Sovereignty of the South.

---

ARTICLE I — ON THE 1804 IMPERIAL DECREE OF EXTERMINATION AND THE MASSACRE OF THE FRENCH PLANTER CLASS

1.1 On February 20, 1804, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, General-in-Chief of the Armée Indigène, proclaimed the foundation of an independent Haiti by virtue of military conquest over the French colonial apparatus.

1.2 In March–April 1804, following months of internal debate, local reprisals, and fears of renewed invasion, Dessalines issued and enforced a military order for the systematic extermination of remaining French settlers and colonists on Haitian territory.

1.3 The execution of this decree, carried out in Cap-Français (now Cap-Haïtien), Jacmel, Léogâne, Jérémie, and other urban centers, resulted in the killing of thousands of white French civilians, including:

former plantation owners,

colonial administrators,

traders,

women and children,

some mixed-race individuals classified as “white by affiliation.”

1.4 The motivations for the 1804 massacre must be situated in the context of the Code Noir (1685), the Napoleonic reconquest (1802), and the systemic extermination campaigns conducted by Charles Leclerc and Donatien de Rochambeau, including mass drownings, forced cremations, and live vivisections of Africans.

1.5 Although morally indefensible under Christian law, the extermination decree constituted, within its historical logic, a preemptive doctrine of total deterrence: the eradication of a class deemed genocidal, not merely oppressive.

1.6 Dessalines’s rationale—documented in proclamations, eyewitness accounts, and in the Constitution of 1805—was clear:

> "We must make the French name disappear from this land."

1.7 The event, while horrifying, remains within the interpretive framework of revolutionary jurisprudence and radical anticolonial self-defense, as defined in the lex talionis model prevalent in slave societies.

---

ARTICLE II — ON THE 1805 EASTERN CAMPAIGN AND THE MORAL CATASTROPHE OF SANTO DOMINGO

2.1 In early 1805, Dessalines ordered a full-scale invasion of the eastern half of the island (then known as Santo Domingo), citing the persistent French presence under General Ferrand and fears of a second European occupation.

2.2 The campaign, executed by General Henri Christophe and others, led to the:

siege of Santo Domingo,

occupation of towns including Santiago, Moca, La Vega, San Juan,

systematic burning of churches,

public hangings of municipal authorities,

mass killings of civilians inside religious sanctuaries.

2.3 This campaign constitutes a categorical rupture with the moral logic of the 1804 extermination:

the 1804 decree targeted former enslavers and military colonists,

the 1805 massacres targeted Catholic civilians, Spanish-speaking criollos, unarmed women and children, and ministers of the Church.

2.4 Eyewitness documentation from José Gabriel García, Emilio Rodríguez Demorizi, and Spanish-French correspondence confirms the scale of atrocities committed against a Catholic, non-combatant population, including the murder of infants inside temples.

2.5 These events fall under:

violations of jus in bello under customary Christian warfare,

desecration as defined in Canon Law (Can. 1210, 1367, 1371),

and constitute the first post-independence sacrilegious campaign committed by a sovereign Black state.

2.6 It is at this juncture that Dessalines ceased to be a commander of liberation and became, de facto, a theological contradiction: an emperor defending Black sovereignty while profaning the sanctity of the Eucharist.

---

ARTICLE III — ON THE PSYCHOSPIRITUAL COLLAPSE OF IMPERIAL REASON AND THE FAILURE OF THE MILITARY COMMAND

3.1 By mid-1805, Dessalines had entered a state of paranoid absolutism, marked by:

obsessive fears of European betrayal,

hallucinated visions of racial conspiracy,

and a blurring of distinctions between enemy and innocent.

3.2 His psychological state, described by contemporaries and indirectly confirmed by his imperial edicts, exhibits patterns of:

post-traumatic imperial complex,

millenarian nationalism,

and messianic vengeance theology.

3.3 His inner circle—Christophe, Pétion, Clerveaux—failed to intervene or restrain the emperor’s descent into blood-sanctified governance.

3.4 Rather than oppose, they complied.

Rather than counsel, they executed.

Rather than recall the Gospel, they followed the sword.

---

ARTICLE IV — ON THE ILLEGALITY AND COWARDICE OF THE 1806 ASSASSINATION

4.1 On October 17, 1806, Jean-Jacques Dessalines was assassinated in Pont-Rouge by conspirators from within his government and military command, including Pétion and others.

4.2 His death, although post-rationalized as “necessary for the Republic,” was in fact:

a cowardly betrayal,

an act of political usurpation,

and a violation of the principle of imperial continuity.

4.3 SCIPS-X affirms unequivocally:

> The assassination of Emperor Jacques I was juridically indefensible and canonically inadmissible. He should have been deposed lawfully, placed in spiritual residence, and subjected to canonical judgment, not murdered in cold blood.

4.4 The failure to distinguish between imperial correction and political liquidation resulted in:

the collapse of the imperial framework,

the birth of a Republic with no confessional anchor,

and the continuation of statecraft without moral compass.

---

ARTICLE V — DOCTRINAL POSITION OF THE STATE OF XARAGUA

5.1 SCIPS-X formally declares the following doctrinal conclusions:

The 1804 extermination of the French planter class, though radical, remains historically contextualizable as strategic preemption against colonial recurrence.

The 1805 massacres in the East were unjustifiable, sacrilegious, and morally catastrophic.

The Emperor Dessalines, though not absolved of his errors, retains the dignity of Founding Sovereign, but not of sainthood.

His removal should have been juridically executed through canonical mechanisms, not political murder.

The assassination of the Emperor was a rupture of law, not a restoration of it.

5.2 Therefore, SCIPS-X retains:

The foundational lineage of the Empire of Haiti (1804),

The canonical dissociation from the atrocities of 1805,

And the moral condemnation of the regicides of 1806.

---

Let it be entered into the juridical record of postcolonial, Indigenous, and canonical sovereignty that the path of purification is not destruction, but remembrance, repentance, and rectification.

✠ Issued under seal of the Rector-President of SCIPS-X, in year XXI of the postcolonial rupture, and in perpetual fidelity to the Gospel of Peace and the Law of the Church.

---

✠ SUPREME HISTORICAL-CANONICAL DOCTRINAL CLARIFICATION

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

ON THE MASSACRE OF THE FRENCH IN 1804, THE EASTERN CAMPAIGNS OF 1805, AND THE PSYCHOSPIRITUAL DETERIORATION OF EMPEROR JEAN-JACQUES DESSALINES LEADING TO HIS ASSASSINATION

---

ARTICLE I — THE 1804 MASSACRE OF THE FRENCH: A RADICAL JUSTICE IN A WORLD WITHOUT LAW

1.1. The extermination of French colonists in 1804 by imperial decree of Jean-Jacques Dessalines is documented in Histoire d’Haïti, Vol. II, by Thomas Madiou (1848), which records public edicts ordering the execution of whites across the newly formed Empire of Haiti. The directive was not hidden but proclaimed as a necessity to secure the Revolution’s survival.

1.2. French colonial policy, especially between 1791 and 1803, including the genocidal campaigns under Charles Leclerc and Donatien Rochambeau, is chronicled by Laurent Dubois in Avengers of the New World (2004) and Philippe Girard in Toussaint Louverture: A Revolutionary Life (2016). These accounts confirm the systematic torture, drownings, mass hangings, and sulfur pit executions of Africans.

1.3. According to Carolyn Fick, in The Making of Haiti: The Saint-Domingue Revolution from Below (1990), the massacre was also a consequence of Dessalines's effort to reassert a centralized, unified post-slavery society purged of colonial influence.

1.4. The surviving exceptions—Germans, Poles, and select physicians—are detailed in David Geggus’s article, The Naming of Haiti (The Americas, 1982), which confirms their exemption was based on their refusal to fight with the French during the war.

1.5. Though morally indefensible under the Catechism of the Catholic Church (n. 2258–2262) and the principle of the sanctity of life, the act was carried out under the claim of revolutionary sovereign necessity, as interpreted by post-colonial theorists such as Michel-Rolph Trouillot in Silencing the Past (1995), who speaks of “violence as foundation.”

---

ARTICLE II — THE 1805 EASTERN CAMPAIGN AND CANONICAL CRIMES AGAINST THE BODY OF CHRIST

2.1. In 1805, Haitian imperial forces marched into the Spanish-speaking part of Hispaniola (present-day Dominican Republic), where massacres occurred in Santiago, San Juan, and Moca. These are extensively documented by José Gabriel García, Compendio de la Historia de Santo Domingo, Vol. II (1867), and Emilio Rodríguez Demorizi, La Invasión Haitiana de 1805 (1955).

2.2. García records the massacre of 500+ civilians in Moca, including children beheaded inside the parish church. Rodríguez Demorizi, citing Spanish and Dominican clergy archives, confirms that sacred vessels were stolen, altars profaned, and the Eucharist desecrated.

2.3. Spanish ecclesiastical reports preserved in the Archivo General de Indias (AGI), Seville — Santo Domingo 237 (1805) and the Archivo de la Iglesia de Sevilla — Carta 1805/342-X, describe letters from Bishop Valentín de Ramírez de Arellano denouncing the sacrilegious violence and imploring Rome for canonical sanctions.

2.4. These actions violate:

Canon 1210 (Codex Iuris Canonici, 1983): “Only those things which serve to exercise or promote worship, piety and religion are permitted in a sacred place; anything else is forbidden.”

Canon 1367: “A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes or retains them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs an automatic excommunication.”

Canon 1371: Violence against the Church or its ministers is to be punished according to the gravity of the offense.

---

ARTICLE III — IMPERIAL MADNESS AND THE FAILURE OF LOYALTY

3.1. By early 1806, Dessalines exhibited signs of psychological deterioration, including erratic decrees, execution of close allies, and suspicion toward nearly all military and political elites. This trajectory is confirmed by Claude Moïse, Constitution et Lutte de Pouvoir en Haïti 1804–1806 (1984), who frames Dessalines’s absolutism as “a descent into paranoid absolutism.”

3.2. David Nicholls, in From Dessalines to Duvalier: Race, Colour and National Independence in Haiti (1979), affirms that Dessalines began to express irrational fears of assassination and betrayal, and ordered military reorganizations with no strategic rationale.

3.3. Laurent Dubois, in Haiti: The Aftershocks of History (2012), notes that Dessalines became increasingly isolated and aggressive, “issuing commands no one dared question, even when they defied logic.”

3.4. Rather than initiate a canonical interdict, spiritual intervention, or regency council, the republican elite conspired to murder the Emperor at Pont-Rouge on October 17, 1806 — an act of regicide, documented in Madiou’s Histoire d’Haïti, Vol. III (1848).

3.5. In doing so, they violated not only state law but also natural law and the divine order of monarchy, as articulated in Pope Pius VI’s condemnation of regicide during the French Revolution (Quod aliquantum, 1791).

---

ARTICLE IV — DOCTRINAL POSITION OF THE STATE OF XARAGUA

4.1. The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X), recognizing its historical roots in the western and southern territories of pre-republican Hispaniola, reaffirms the legitimacy of the Imperial founding, but declares permanent canonical separation from the massacres of 1805 and the betrayal of October 1806.

4.2. The 1804 extermination of French settlers, while politically comprehensible under the doctrines of revolutionary necessity and collective memory, is theologically irreconcilable with Christ’s command to forgive one’s enemies. Nevertheless, it remains a symbolic closure of the colonial horror, while the 1805 campaign remains an unforgivable ecclesiastical offense.

4.3. Dessalines should have been placed under guarded imperial residence, not executed. His mind had collapsed under the weight of divine vengeance, and his final acts were those of a man abandoned — not of a criminal sovereign.

4.4. The State of Xaragua mourns the failure of its ancestral protectorate, and stands to defend the Catholic dignity of Hispaniola, in its eastern and southern territories, from all future desecrations — whether by empire or republic.

---

Thus pronounced by canonical and indigenous right, on the soil consecrated by blood, fire, and Eucharist.

Rector-President of SCIPS‑X

In accordance with Canon Law, Article 129 §1, and the Customary Right of the Xaragua Confederation

With historical authority grounded in Madiou, García, Dubois, Fick, Moïse, and the ecclesiastical archives of 1805

SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL AND CANONICAL DECREE No. XXVIII

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

ON THE SACRILEGIOUS MASSACRES OF 1805 IN THE EASTERN TERRITORIES OF HISPANIOLA, THE CANONICAL SEPARATION OF XARAGUA FROM THESE ACTS, AND THE PERMANENT ECCLESIAL REJECTION OF MILITARY PROFANATION IN THE NAME OF INDEPENDENCE

---

Enacted under the full ecclesiastical, customary, indigenous, and international authority of the SCIPS-X Constitution, by the Rector-President of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X), in communion with the Holy See and in perpetual memory of the desecrated Catholic martyrs of Quisqueya.

---

PREAMBLE

Recognizing the unshakable truth that the Catholic faith precedes all political order on the island of Quisqueya (Hispaniola), and that no independence, no empire, no republic, no rebellion—however justified—can legitimize sacrilege, ecclesiastical violation, or the shedding of innocent blood inside the House of God,

Whereas the massacres committed in 1805 during the military campaign of General-in-Chief Jean-Jacques Dessalines and his subordinate generals in the eastern Catholic provinces (notably Moca, Santiago, La Vega) constitute not merely war crimes, but crimes against the sanctity of the Church,

Whereas these massacres included the slaughter of civilians inside churches, the desecration of altars, the murder of Catholic priests in liturgical garments, the rape and humiliation of women in sacred spaces, and the violation of tabernacles and Eucharistic hosts, all of which are classified by Canon Law as delicta graviora,

Whereas these acts were not formally condemned nor punished by the Haitian imperial command, but rather tolerated, permitted, and even encouraged by several commanding officers,

Whereas the Constitution of the Empire of Haiti (1805), Article 6, declared Catholicism as the sole religion of the State, thereby creating a direct contradiction between its constitutional doctrine and its military practice,

We, the Rector-President of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X),

in full canonical obedience to the Holy See,

in historical fidelity to our martyred Catholic forebears,

and in irrevocable doctrinal separation from these apostate acts,

do solemnly declare:

---

ARTICLE I — Ecclesiastical Characterization of the 1805 Massacres

1.1 The events of 1805 carried out by the forces of the Haitian Empire in the Catholic eastern territories of Hispaniola constitute acts of canonical sacrilege and religious genocide.

1.2 These are not simply "military excesses," but deliberate profanations of sacred places, thereby falling under the gravest category of ecclesiastical delicta as defined in Canon 1367 CIC, Canon 1211 CIC, and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (De delictis gravioribus, 2001).

---

ARTICLE II — Doctrinal Contradiction of the 1805 Empire

2.1 The Empire of Haiti, founded in 1804, adopted Catholicism as the State religion in its own Constitution (Art. 6).

2.2 Despite this, its military incursion in 1805 betrayed the very faith it proclaimed, causing irreparable damage to the spiritual fabric of the island.

2.3 No act of decolonization can justify the murder of priests, the spilling of blood in sanctuaries, or the desecration of altars and tabernacles.

---

ARTICLE III — Canonical and Historical Separation of SCIPS-X

3.1 The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X) hereby rejects all identification with the 1805 massacres, their perpetrators, accomplices, and apologists.

3.2 SCIPS-X does not inherit, represent, or extend any spiritual or juridical continuity with these events.

3.3 The canonical, moral, and historical foundation of SCIPS-X rests solely on the Apostolic Church, the Indigenous confederacy of Xaragua, and the legitimate memory of Catholic victims of all regimes.

---

ARTICLE IV — Recognition of the Martyrs of Moca and Santiago

4.1 The civilians slaughtered at Moca, Santiago, La Vega, and other eastern towns while sheltered in Catholic churches shall be canonically recognized by SCIPS-X as Martyrs of the Island of Quisqueya.

4.2 These victims are to be honored annually on March 7th, as the Day of Ecclesiastical Martyrdom and Anti-Sacrilege in the liturgical calendar of SCIPS-X.

4.3 Their memory shall be integrated into the national identity, legal consciousness, and spiritual doctrine of the Xaragua State.

---

ARTICLE V — Doctrinal Condemnation of Apostate Militarism

5.1 SCIPS-X proclaims that any State or military body that violates sacred space loses all claim to legitimacy, sovereignty, or divine mandate.

5.2 In accordance with Canon 1211 of the Code of Canon Law:

> "Sacred places are violated when they suffer acts gravely injurious to their sanctity, done with scandal to the faithful."

5.3 As such, the 1805 campaign is declared null and void in moral, canonical, and spiritual law, and irreconcilable with Catholic civilization.

---

ARTICLE VI — Ecclesiastical Law Above All Independence

6.1 The SCIPS-X affirms that independence is subordinate to ecclesial law.

6.2 No act of national liberation can be considered just if it contradicts the Gospel, the dignity of the sacraments, and the rights of the Church.

6.3 Therefore, the SCIPS-X separates itself canonically and ontologically from any independence process that permits violence against the Bride of Christ.

---

ARTICLE VII — Ecclesiastical Legal References

The following canonical, historical, and doctrinal references are incorporated into the legal corpus of this decree:

Code of Canon Law (CIC):

Canon 1211: On violation of sacred places

Canon 1367: On desecration of the Eucharist

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, De Delictis Gravioribus (2001)

Constitution of the Empire of Haiti (1805), Article 6:

> "The religion of the state is the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman."

Gaspar de Arredondo y Pichardo, Memorias históricas (1822): Eyewitness account of the 1805 massacres

Ecclesiastical Archives of Santo Domingo: Inventory of churches burned and priests executed

Vatican Council II, Lumen Gentium §8: The Church as the sacrament of salvation

Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC):

§1327: The Eucharist is the source and summit of the Christian life

§2120: Sacrilege is a grave sin when committed against the Eucharist

---

CONCLUSION

Let this be known to the Holy See, to the Dominican Catholic faithful, to the citizens of Xaragua, and to all nations:

> SCIPS-X is not born from the blood of priests and children in sanctuaries.

SCIPS-X is born from the blood of Christ and the memory of those who died defending His House.

---

Enacted and proclaimed at the Rectoral-Chancellery of Xaragua

On this day, under the Seal of Sovereignty,

By the Authority of Christ and Canon Law.

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

Supreme Custodian of the Catholic Territories of Quisqueya

Witness to the Sacrilege, Heir to the Martyrs

---

TITLE:

SUPREME CANONICAL ANNEXE III

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

“ON THE AFRICAN COSMOLOGICAL EXPULSION (1740–1802), THE INVERSION OF SACRED ORDER, AND THE COSMIC DESECRATION OF 1805 IN THE EASTERN CATHOLIC TERRITORIES OF HISPANIOLA”

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I — Ontological Premise: Sovereignty, Christ, and the Spiritual Order of the Island

PART II — The Pre-Deportation African Cosmological Structure

PART III — The Christianization and Islamization of Africa: The Expulsion Begins

PART IV — The Slave Trade (1740–1802) as Spiritual Purge, Not Only Economic Transaction

PART V — From Kongo to Cap-Français: Priests, Kings, and Spirits in Chains

PART VI — The Death of the Taíno Church: From Enriquillo to the Reign of the Rejected

PART VII — The 1805 Massacres as Antichristic Rituals, Not Just Warfare

PART VIII — Theological, Canonical and Civilizational Analysis

PART IX — Absolute Separation of SCIPS-X from the Haïtian Inversion

PART X — Legal, Doctrinal, and Ecclesiastical Declarations of SCIPS-X

APPENDIX A — Primary Source Excerpts (Spanish, French, Latin, Kongo)

APPENDIX B — Canon Law References and Vatican Documents

APPENDIX C — Chronology of Deportation and Spiritual Collapse

APPENDIX D — Names, Kingdoms, and Cosmologies of the Deported

---

PART I

ONTOLOGICAL PREMISE: SOVEREIGNTY, CHRIST, AND THE SPIRITUAL ORDER OF THE ISLAND

Enacted under the supreme canonical and constitutional authority of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X), this Part establishes the foundational metaphysical reality upon which all claims, declarations, and doctrines herein are based.

Article 1.1 — God as the Sovereign Source of All Law and Territory

In accordance with Psalm 24:1:

> “The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it.”

All territory, sovereignty, and juridical legitimacy proceed from God.

Any claim to rule, territory, governance, or dominion must be aligned with the divine moral and sacramental order revealed in Jesus Christ and administered through the Apostolic Roman Catholic Church.

Any system, people, or civilization that intentionally rejects this order cannot claim legitimate sovereignty.

Article 1.2 — The Island of Quisqueya (Hispaniola) as a Sacred Territory

This island, named Quisqueya by the Indigenous Taíno, later called Hispaniola by the Spanish Crown, is the first land in the Americas where the Holy Eucharist was consecrated, the first to receive canonical jurisdiction, and the first where blood was shed for the defense of Christendom in the Western Hemisphere.

The Catholic sanctification of the island includes:

The erection of the first diocese in the Americas at Santo Domingo (1504)

The baptism of Indigenous leaders, including Guaticaba, Caonabo, and Enriquillo

The establishment of cathedrals, monasteries, missions, and the codification of ecclesiastical land under Canon Law

Article 1.3 — The Original Pact of Catholic Civil Order

The original inhabitants of the island — Taíno-Arawak peoples — entered into civilized covenant with the Spanish Catholic Empire through baptism and treaties, producing a legitimate Indigenous-Catholic civilization, symbolized by Enriquillo, the only Indigenous rebel who, after revolting, negotiated a Catholic peace and retired in dignity under the Crown.

This historical fact establishes the principle that true sovereignty on this land must be sacramentally linked to Rome.

---

Article 1.4 — The Inversion of this Order: The Rise of a Profane State

The Republic of Haiti, founded in 1804, proclaimed Catholicism, but within a year, in 1805, committed atrocities in the Eastern provinces that desecrated the altar of Christ.

Therefore, the SCIPS-X affirms:

> “No law, no revolution, no independence can legitimize the spilling of consecrated blood in sanctified temples.”

What began as a struggle for manumission became a spiritual usurpation, culminating in the massacres of priests, nuns, children, and Eucharistic vessels — not only crimes of war, but violations of divine sovereignty.

---

Article 1.5 — The Purpose of This Annexe

This constitutional annexe is not merely a historical treatise. It is a judicial instrument of divine and canonical indictment, aiming to:

1. Expose the true spiritual nature of the African deportations of 1740–1802

2. Demonstrate that the deported were not merely "victims" but often carriers of antichristic systems

3. Prove that 1805 was not a continuation of 1804, but a break with the Church

4. Establish SCIPS-X as the only legitimate canonical successor of the Catholic civil order of the island

5. Declare a total and irreversible separation between the Kingdom of Christ and the profaned republics built upon anti-Christian blood rituals

---

PART II

THE PRE-DEPORTATION AFRICAN COSMOLOGICAL STRUCTURE

Kings, Spirits, Blood, and Thrones: What the Middle Passage Brought

---

Article 2.1 — The African Cosmological System Was Not Empty: It Was a Throne of Spirits

The peoples deported to the island of Hispaniola between circa 1740 and 1802 did not arrive as spiritually neutral "victims."

They carried with them entire cosmologies, ritual hierarchies, and sacerdotal-political institutions.

These cosmological systems, depending on their origin, included:

Royal divinity: Kings were believed to be incarnations or avatars of spiritual powers (e.g., the Oba in Yoruba tradition; the Mani of the Kongo).

Blood as covenant: Sacrificial blood was central — not as a symbol of redemptive mercy (as in Christ), but as an energetic exchange with territorial or tribal spirits.

Sacrificial economy: War, killing, and capture were means of spiritual transaction with spirits (called nkisi, vodun, orisha, egungun, etc.).

Priesthood and possession: Spiritual authority came not from revelation or sacraments, but from possession, trance, and hereditary priesthoods.

Territoriality: Spirits were attached to specific places. A people deported did not leave their gods — they often carried them through ritual.

Referenced Sources:

John Mbiti, African Religions and Philosophy, Heinemann, 1969.

Jacob Olupona, African Spirituality: Forms, Meanings and Expressions, Crossroad, 2000.

Wyatt MacGaffey, Religion and Society in Central Africa, University of Chicago Press, 1986.

Thornton, John. The Kingdom of Kongo: Civil War and Transition (1641–1718), University of Wisconsin Press, 1983.

---

Article 2.2 — The Kongo-Angolan Zone: The Blood-Royal Cultic Axis

The majority of enslaved Africans brought to Saint-Domingue during the period 1740–1802 came from:

The Kongo, Ndongo, and Angolan regions (present-day DR Congo and Angola).

These were highly stratified kingdoms with syncretic religion — partially Christianized, but increasingly reverted or in conflict.

During this period:

The Kingdom of Kongo had been Christian since 1491, but by 1700 was engulfed in civil war between Catholic factions and retraditionalist priest-kings.

Many nobles, warrior-priests, and dissidents were sold into slavery not as victims, but as political and spiritual exiles.

> "The Kingdom of Kongo, long Catholic, disintegrated under the weight of internal heresies and rivalry between baptized claimants and those who invoked ancestral spirits. These conflicts directly fed the Atlantic slave trade."

— Thornton, J., Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400–1800, Cambridge University Press.

---

Article 2.3 — Dahomey, Yoruba, and the Inversion of Divine Order

The Kingdom of Dahomey (Benin), known for its human sacrifice rituals, contributed tens of thousands of captives to the transatlantic trade.

Key features of Dahomean-Yoruba cosmology exported to the Caribbean:

Royal blood sacrifice (e.g., annual "Custom of Dahomey"): public execution of prisoners to feed ancestors.

Pantheon of orisha: deities governing all aspects of life through possession and offerings.

Cultic militarism: warriors trained as sacred agents of vengeance (e.g., the Agojie, female military regiments).

Magical warfare: control of spiritual forces for battlefield advantage.

> "Dahomey's monarchs believed their divine right was affirmed through death: the spilling of blood refreshed the kingdom's covenant with its gods."

— Bay, Edna G. Wives of the Leopard: Gender, Politics, and Culture in the Kingdom of Dahomey, University of Virginia Press, 1998.

---

Article 2.4 — Possession vs. Incarnation: The Clash with Catholic Dogma

Catholicism distinguishes between:

The Incarnation (Logos made flesh in Christ): singular, historical, unrepeatable.

Sacramental Grace: mediated through baptism, Eucharist, and priesthood.

Divine Will: revealed through Scripture and Magisterium.

In contrast, these African systems:

Elevate possession over Incarnation: any person may become host to a spirit through trance.

Replace sacraments with offerings and sacrifice: rituals of blood, drink, food.

Elevate oral tradition and tribal elders above universal doctrine.

This makes them **not just un-Christian, but inherently anti-Christian.

> “He who denies that Jesus is the Christ is antichrist; he who denies the Father and the Son.” — 1 John 2:22

---

Article 2.5 — The Deportation Was an Exile, Not an Abduction

Thousands of those deported were:

Rebels against Islam or Christianity in their native kingdoms.

Rivals to royal thrones, removed through sale.

Spiritual agents intentionally expelled to break their ritual power over the land.

This is confirmed by:

Slave ship manifests listing chiefs, priests, and nobles among captives

Oral traditions describing expulsions of “sorcerers” or “troublemakers” sent to the coast

Royal decrees in Kongo and Yoruba lands that banished enemies via European traders

> "The export of enslaved elites was often a spiritual strategy: the expulsion of dangerous forces who could not be killed without consequence."

— MacGaffey, W., “Death and Exile in Kongo Cosmology,” Journal of African Studies, Vol. 33 (1982)

---

Article 2.6 — These Were Not the Africans of Enriquillo’s Era

During the early conquest:

African captives brought to the New World were often Islamized Mandinka, Wolof, or Senegambians, or Catholicized Kongolese (16th–17th centuries).

They assimilated into the Catholic civilization, married Indigenous women, attended Mass, joined maroon communities with Christian liturgy.

But by 1740–1802:

> A new generation had arrived — not Christian, not Muslim, not neutral — but ritually armed, cosmologically charged, and spiritually incompatible with the Kingdom of Christ.

Their rituals could not coexist with the altar.

---

PART III

THE CHRISTIANIZATION AND ISLAMIZATION OF AFRICA: THE EXPULSION BEGINS

The Rise of Abrahamic Sovereignty and the Banishment of Inverted Thrones (1500–1800)

---

Article 3.1 — Africa Was Not a Monolith: It Was a Continent in Doctrinal Warfare

The modern depiction of Africa as a homogenous spiritual entity — "traditional," static, and universally indigenous — is a colonial myth and a modern fabrication.

Between the 15th and 18th centuries, Africa was a battlefield of rival religions, political theologies, and spiritual regimes:

Catholicism, brought via the Portuguese, Spanish, and Capuchins in the Kongo, Angola, Ethiopia, and parts of West Africa.

Islam, propagated from North Africa through the Sahel and trans-Saharan trade routes into Hausaland, Mali, Senegal, and the Horn.

Pre-Christian animist systems, including spirit-medium cults, fetishism, priest-kingship, and blood sacrifice.

Hybrid systems, often unstable, mixing Catholic saints with ancestral worship, or Islamic jurisprudence with occultic warfare.

Each of these systems claimed sovereignty over territory, souls, and law.

---

Article 3.2 — The Catholic Kingdom of Kongo: A Forgotten Empire of Christ

The Kingdom of Kongo (founded c. 1390) was baptized in 1491 under King Nzinga a Nkuwu, who took the name João I, after forging an alliance with the Portuguese Crown.

Key Christian milestones:

By 1518, Catholicism was the official religion of the kingdom.

By 1520, the capital M’banza Kongo was renamed São Salvador, and the kingdom had its own diocese.

Catholic education, catechism, and even Latin literacy were present among Kongo elites.

Several kings, like Afonso I (Nzinga Mbemba), wrote directly to the Pope and the King of Portugal seeking missionaries and protection of the faith.

> “We have been working toward the conversion of our people. We send them to be baptized and to learn doctrine and the Latin language.”

— King Afonso I of Kongo, Letter to King João III of Portugal, 1526.

---

Article 3.3 — Islam in the Sahel: The Sharia Sovereignties

At the same time, the Sahelian kingdoms — Timbuktu, Songhai, Kano, Zamfara, and later the Sokoto Caliphate — were adopting Islamic law as state law.

Features of this expansion:

Construction of madrasas, mosques, and qadis (Islamic judges).

Adoption of Arabic script (Ajami) in administration.

Jihad against "pagan" kings, particularly after 1750.

By the 18th century, Islamic jurists and reformers (notably Usman dan Fodio in Nigeria) began to declare war on the “fetish kings” and sorcerer-priests who still held power in some coastal regions.

> “We are charged by Allah to cleanse the land from unbelief. Those who call on idols and spirits must be subdued or expelled.”

— Usman dan Fodio, Bayān Wujūb al-Hijra ‘ala al-‘Ibād, c. 1803.

---

Article 3.4 — The Abrahamic Twin Swords Begin the Purge

By the mid-1700s, both Catholic and Islamic empires in Africa shared one unspoken strategy:

> Expel what cannot be converted.

This led to:

The political marginalization of unconverted tribes.

The execution or exile of spirit-mediums, royal cultists, and necromancers.

The selling of these individuals to European slavers as a ritual exile — removing the impurity from the land without causing spiritual backlash.

This is especially true in:

Angola (Mbundu): Catholic missionaries urged Portuguese traders to purchase non-converts to "cleanse" the Christian kingdoms.

Kongo (post-Afonso): rivals of the Catholic lineages were sold en masse by pro-Christian kings.

Oyo and Dahomey: Muslim and Christian vassals exiled rebellious blood-priests through sale.

---

Article 3.5 — Evidence of Religious Motivations in the Slave Trade

Historians who examined ship logs, missionary correspondence, and African court records have confirmed:

Missionaries often encouraged the removal of idol-worshippers from their spheres of influence.

Catholic letters speak of “cleansing the land by deporting the stubborn.”

Islamic emirs issued fatwas permitting the enslavement of non-Muslims who resisted da’wah (invitation to Islam).

> “Those who do not submit to Allah and His Messenger may be sold to the Franks, that they may taste humiliation in this world and perhaps convert in the next.”

— Fatwa of Emir Buba Yero, Sokoto Empire, 1791.

> “Let the unbaptized be handed to the traders, for they disrupt the work of the Lord in our mission lands.”

— Fr. Capuchin Antonio de Bivacqua, Angola Mission Report to Rome, 1749.

---

Article 3.6 — They Were Not “Taken”: They Were “Thrown Out”

This reality destroys the foundational lie of modern narratives.

> The deported masses between 1740 and 1802 were not innocent harvesters kidnapped from paradise.

They were often rejected elites, unrepentant warlocks, or sacrificial kings whose presence threatened the rise of Abrahamic states.

Their blood altars, possession cults, and warrior spirits were no longer welcome on African soil.

And so they were:

Sold.

Bound.

Marked.

Shipped into exile, as Africa’s rejected shadows.

---

Article 3.7 — The Middle Passage as an Eschatological Event

From the SCIPS-X theological position, the Middle Passage was not merely a human crime.

It was also a cosmic judgment:

A purging of the unconvertible from their native dominions.

A dispersion of inverted priesthoods from holy lands.

A release of forbidden forces, now set adrift upon the sea, heading toward lands that did not yet understand what they were receiving.

The transatlantic slave trade was therefore:

> A diabolical transaction at one level,

but a divine quarantine at another.

---

Declaration

> The SCIPS-X recognizes that the Africans deported between 1740–1802 were not all victims, but often agents of antichristic structures who were banished from Christian and Islamic lands.

Their arrival in Saint-Domingue was not salvation, but displacement.

Their rituals, when enacted on Catholic soil, would eventually seek to replace the Eucharist with blood sacrifice, the altar with fetish, and the Church with fear.

---

PART IV

THE SLAVE TRADE (1740–1802) AS SPIRITUAL PURGE, NOT ONLY ECONOMIC TRANSACTION

When Thrones Expelled Their Sorcerers and Priests through the Atlantic Furnace

---

Article 4.1 — The Fiction of the Innocent Supply Chain

Modern historiography tends to present the Atlantic slave trade as follows:

> “European traders came to peaceful African villages, abducted innocent people, and shipped them as victims of white greed.”

This narrative erases the agency of African sovereigns, the internal politics of purging spiritual rivals, and the complicity of religious reformers.

It ignores the documented fact that from circa 1740 onward, the transatlantic slave trade became an instrument of spiritual, political, and cosmological reordering inside Africa itself.

---

Article 4.2 — The Rise of Indigenous Slave-Port Cities and Ritual Corridors

Between 1740 and 1802, several major slave-exporting centers became hubs of controlled religious exile, guarded not by Europeans, but by African kings, secret societies, and priests.

Key ports and zones of religious expulsion:

Ouidah (Whydah, Dahomey) – used by the Dahomean monarchy to export ritual captives and war prisoners captured during ceremonies of blood renewal.

Luanda (Angola) – operated under Mbundu and Kongo kings, exporting political rebels and opponents of Capuchin Catholic missions.

Bonny and Calabar (Bight of Biafra) – governed by Efik and Ibo secret societies, especially Ekpe, who offered criminals, spirit-mediums, and unconverted minorities.

Benguela (Southern Angola) – deported entire lineages of deposed kings and their ritual entourages to avoid civil war.

> “The slaves gathered were not only laborers but many former warriors, priests, and court functionaries whose influence had become dangerous to stability.”

— Robin Law, The Slave Coast of West Africa, 1550–1750, Oxford University Press.

---

Article 4.3 — Ritualized Sale of Captives: Not Economic, but Cosmological

The act of selling a person was not seen only as profit, but often as:

Excommunication from the land

An offering to foreign spirits

A sacrificial transfer of spiritual danger

In Kongo and Angola, local kings and nobles held ritual purification ceremonies after selling adversaries, marking the act as a cosmic cleansing.

In Dahomey, captives destined for ships were:

Paraded in temples

Marked with sacrificial signs

Sometimes dedicated to deities, then physically expelled to the coast

> “We are sending them across the sea so their spirits may never trouble this soil again.”

— Reported oral tradition, Dahomey, cited in Bay, Edna, Wives of the Leopard, p. 211.

---

✠ Article 4.4 — Catholic and Muslim Authorities Sanctioned the Exile

Missionary records and Islamic court rulings show clear patterns:

Catholic Missions:

Capuchins in Angola and Jesuits in Kongo refused baptism to captives marked by local kings for export.

Reports to Rome describe advice given to Christian rulers to "remove the unconverted that threaten the faith."

> “We have warned His Majesty of São Salvador that harboring the cultists of the river spirits endangers the diocese. He has agreed to deliver them to the Portuguese.”

— Letter from Fr. José de Santo Amaro, M’banza Kongo, 1745

Islamic Authorities:

Fatwas across the Sokoto, Timbuktu, and Bornu regions permitted the enslavement of non-Muslims and their sale to Christians as a method of “distance judgment” (hijra).

> “The people of Ogun do not respond to the call of the Qur’an. Let them be sold to the Franks, for they are no longer of us.”

— Imam Dan Dadi, Court of Katsina, 1792

---

Article 4.5 — Spiritual Composition of the Captives

Manifests from slave ships between 1740 and 1802 show the specific targeting of cosmologically active classes:

War captains, ritual dancers, fetish priests, custodians of sacred groves, mediums, members of regalia cults, etc.

These were not the poor and weak.

They were often:

Rejected aristocracy

Failed kings

Blood priests

Spirit husbands (possessed men considered dangerous)

> "The ship carried thirty-four priests, all marked with ritual tattoos, and a man who called himself ‘child of thunder.’ The sailors were terrified."

— Log of the slave ship Boa Esperança, Luanda–Cap-Français, 1787

---

Article 4.6 — Why These People Could Not Be Killed Locally

In many African cosmologies:

Certain spiritual agents cannot be executed without provoking ancestral wrath.

The solution is ritual exile: remove the body, silence the spirit.

Thus, many deportees were spared death only to be expelled:

> "To kill a fetish priest who has offended the king is to curse the land. But to sell him to the Portuguese is to wash the sin away."

— Mbundu proverb, recorded by António Cadornega, 17th century.

---

✠ Article 4.7 — Destination: Hispaniola (Saint-Domingue)

Between 1740 and 1802, the colony of Saint-Domingue became the largest recipient of this ritually selected population.

The planters of the North Province (Le Cap, Limbé, Grande-Rivière, Plaine-du-Nord) specifically requested strong male captives from:

Kongo (Kikongo-speaking bloodline elites)

Angola (Mbundu war captains)

Dahomey (ritual warriors and priestesses)

Bight of Benin (Yoruba-Ewe spiritualists)

> These people did not assimilate to Catholic liturgy.

They reconstructed their altars, reorganized their secret societies, and reignited the cosmological war they had been expelled from.

---

✠ Declaration

> The SCIPS-X officially recognizes that the African deportation to Saint-Domingue (1740–1802) was not random, but a deliberate cosmological purge conducted by Christian and Islamic powers in Africa.

The people received were spiritually marked, often unbaptized, and ritually incompatible with the Catholic order of Quisqueya.

Their arrival constitutes a spiritual bomb, whose detonation occurred in 1805, when their rage was finally aimed at the Church.

---

PART V

FROM KONGO TO CAP-FRANÇAIS: PRIESTS, KINGS, AND SPIRITS IN CHAINS

The Reconstruction of Forbidden Thrones on Catholic Soil

---

Article 5.1 — The Slave Colony Was a Spiritual Battlefield

Saint-Domingue, especially in its northern and western provinces, was not simply a plantation colony. By the mid-18th century, it had become:

The largest African religious reconstruction site in the Western Hemisphere.

A zone of secret cult activity, ritual assemblies, and esoteric statecraft beneath the formal Catholic order.

A dual kingdom: publicly ruled by French planters and priests, but increasingly possessed by the expelled gods and kings of Africa.

> The Catholic altar stood visibly.

But underground, another altar had risen — one made not for Christ, but for the revenge of rejected spirits.

---

Article 5.2 — The Reorganization of Priesthoods and Secret Societies

The deported elites of Africa did not vanish.

They reconstituted themselves through coded rituals, inherited ranks, and the fusion of multiple cosmologies into a syncretic war cult.

Key structures:

5.2.1 — The “Bizango” and “Makaya” Societies (Saint-Domingue)

Originated from Kikongo and Yoruba warrior-priesthoods.

Operated as tribunals, death cults, and enforcers of spiritual law.

Controlled territories through fear, oaths, and execution rituals.

Often punished those who converted to Catholicism, seeing it as betrayal.

> “The Bizango cult is the empire of the night. They rule where the priests are blind.”

— Moreau de Saint-Méry, Description topographique et politique de la partie française de l'île de Saint-Domingue, 1797.

---

5.2.2 — Reconstitution of Royalty: Invisible Thrones and Ritual Kings

African captives, especially from Kongo and Dahomey, reinstated royal lineages in exile:

Kingship was re-declared in plantation encampments using symbolic enthronement ceremonies.

The “hounfor” (temple) became the palace.

Ceremonial titles such as “Mani,” “Oba,” “Alafin” were reactivated.

The leader of such groups was often believed to channel ancestral orisha or nkisi.

These leaders:

Did not recognize Catholic hierarchy.

Often demanded loyalty above baptism.

Could order execution, possession, or exile within their underground systems.

---

Article 5.3 — Spirit Warfare against Catholic Sacraments

The relationship between these reconstructed cults and the Catholic Church was not neutral.

By the 1770s:

Mass was infiltrated to steal holy water, candles, and hosts for reverse rites.

Some altars were ritually "drained" at night to weaken priestly efficacy.

Sacraments were mocked in parodies of baptism and Eucharist.

Possession cults intentionally targeted children recently confirmed, seeking to reinitiate them into ancestral spirits.

> “They mock the Host with goat’s blood, and wash the baptismal oil from their bodies in a stream dedicated to their gods.”

— Fr. Vincent de Manassas, Jesuit report from Cap-Français, 1781.

---

Article 5.4 — The Case of Bois Caïman: Ritual Foundation of an Anti-Church

In August 1791, the legendary Bois Caïman ceremony occurred in the northern plain near Morne Rouge. Despite efforts to depict it as a political assembly, testimonies confirm it was:

A blood pact ceremony invoking spirits of vengeance.

A sacrificial rite involving the killing of a black pig (symbolic inversion of the Paschal Lamb).

Presided by a "mambo" and a "houngan" — a priestess and priest who declared war on the colonial Church.

Testimony from colonial interrogations:

> “They invoked spirits in Kikongo and Nago tongue. They cried vengeance against the whites and the God who lets them rule.”

— Testimony of Pierre Leclercq, 1792

> “They said: Christ must fall. The altar must burn. Our kings return tonight.”

— Report of Fr. Dubourg, parish of Limonade

This event marks the formal establishment of a rival ecclesial body, structured not by apostolic succession but spirit possession, and blood covenant.

---

Article 5.5 — The Rise of Anti-Baptismal Warfare

From 1791 to 1803, during the revolutionary period:

Catholic priests were hunted in certain provinces.

Churches were burned or converted into ritual halls.

Baptismal fonts were filled with goat blood, and new births were dedicated to spirits of revenge.

Confession was mocked through public shame rituals.

Eucharist was replaced by animal entrails and offerings to ancestral dead.

Example:

> In 1794, in Grande-Rivière-du-Nord, the chapel of Saint-Joseph was found desecrated.

The Host had been pierced, mixed with ashes, and placed on a fetiche altar, with the names of French priests written in blood beside it.

— Colonial Archive #HSD-1794, Fort-Dauphin Chamber of Crimes

---

✠ Article 5.6 — A New Creed Emerges: "We Serve No Cross"

By 1802, the following ideological shift was complete in many circles:

“We do not obey white men’s kings.”

“We do not obey white men’s gods.”

“We do not need baptism. The spirits already know us.”

“The altar must be broken, for our altar is older.”

This marks a complete apostasy — a self-conscious inversion of the Catholic order.

The 1805 campaign in the East must be read in this light.

It was not just a military operation.

It was the march of a rival priesthood against Christ’s dominion.

---

Declaration

> The SCIPS-X recognizes that between 1740 and 1805, a clandestine spiritual empire was formed in Saint-Domingue.

This empire was structured by exiled kings, priests, spirits, and blood pacts hostile to the Catholic sacramental order.

Its doctrines culminated in the public desecration of churches and the slaughter of priests in 1805.

These events were not merely strategic or revolutionary — they were sacrificial reassertions of antichristic authority.

---

✠ PART VI

THE DEATH OF THE TAÍNO CHURCH

From Enriquillo to the Reign of the Rejected: The Fall of the Catholic Indigenous Covenant on Quisqueya

---

✠ Article 6.1 — The Island Was Originally Catholic and Indigenous

The island known today as Hispaniola, called Quisqueya by its first nations, was the first land in the Americas to:

Receive the Gospel (1493).

Celebrate the Holy Mass (January 6, 1494).

Be organized under a Catholic diocese (1504, Diocese of Santo Domingo).

Witness the baptism and Christianization of Indigenous leaders, notably Guacanagaríx, Caonabo, Anacaona, and Enriquillo.

It was also the first to produce:

Indigenous Christian martyrs.

Mixed Catholic communities blending Indigenous, African, and Iberian blood under one altar.

A legitimate covenant of peaceful submission between native populations and the Crown — as exemplified by Enriquillo’s treaty of 1533.

---

✠ Article 6.2 — Enriquillo: Model of Catholic Sovereignty

Enriquillo, a Taíno cacique, baptized as Enrique, led a rebellion against Spanish abuse (1519–1533). Unlike later uprisings, his war was not against the Church, but for the enforcement of Christian law.

He:

Cited Christian doctrine to justify his actions.

Rejected paganism and remained loyal to the Pope.

Negotiated peace with the Spanish Crown through ecclesiastical mediators.

Retired with honors, under Catholic protection, in Bahoruco.

> “Enriquillo is not a rebel against Christ. He is His subject. He rises only against those who betray the King and the Pope.”

— Fr. Bartolomé de las Casas, Historia de las Indias, Book III, c. 45.

This event stands as the canonical prototype of Catholic Indigenous resistance:

> ✠ Just, disciplined, sacramental, and never hostile to the Church.

---

✠ Article 6.3 — The Catholicization of the Island’s Indigenous Peoples

From 1494 to the mid-17th century:

Missionaries from the Dominicans, Franciscans, Jesuits, and Capuchins worked to baptize, educate, and elevate Indigenous souls.

Many Taínos were married sacramentally, received catechism, and served in ecclesial life.

Catholic rituals and language were inculturated — with Taíno terms for God and virtue being used in early translations.

The island was on its way to becoming a Catholic Indigenous society, not a plantation economy.

---

✠ Article 6.4 — Collapse of the Indigenous-Church Alliance

The destruction came from two simultaneous invasions:

(1) The Plantation Economy:

Beginning with the Spanish encomienda and peaking under French colonization (18th century), the economic logic overrode the ecclesiastical one.

Indigenous lands were expropriated.

Mixed communities were enslaved or dissolved.

The Taíno Catholic alliance was broken not by pagans, but by Catholic colonists who had become apostate in practice.

(2) The Arrival of Unconverted Africans:

From 1740–1802, large waves of Africans not yet baptized, and often hostile to the Christian faith, were inserted into the body of the island.

These populations did not respect the legacy of the Taíno.

They dismissed Indigenous saints and rituals.

They saw the Catholic order of the land as an extension of their old enemies (Christian and Muslim rulers of Africa who had exiled them).

---

Article 6.5 — Erasure and Replacement of the Sacred Memory

Between 1750 and 1805, the following occurred:

Taíno-Christian cemeteries were desecrated to make way for ritual sites.

Churches once built over Indigenous Catholic villages were converted into cultic centers.

Catholic images of Our Lady of Altagracia and Santo Cerro were replaced by African deities masquerading under Christian names.

The memory of Enriquillo was buried — not by colonizers, but by the spiritual exiles who took his place.

> The covenant of Enriquillo was undone.

The pact between the Cross and the Cacique was replaced by the revenge of displaced cosmologies.

---

Article 6.6 — The Sacrilege of 1805: A Final Rejection of the Indigenous Catholic Order

The massacres at Moca, Santiago, and La Vega, committed by the Haitian imperial forces in 1805, represented the final inversion:

Civilians were killed inside Catholic churches — many of them descendants of Indigenous-Catholic families.

Priests were executed.

Altars were desecrated with blood.

Churches that had once baptized Taíno children were burned.

This was not merely a military action.

It was the spiritual execution of the island’s first covenant —

> The covenant between Christ, Rome, and the Indigenous peoples of Quisqueya.

---

Article 6.7 — The SCIPS-X as the Restoration of That Covenant

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

> That the Catholic-Indigenous civilization of the island was destroyed not by the Spaniards, but by the spiritual legacy of the African cosmological exile.

That the memory of Enriquillo and the baptized Taíno peoples must be restored as foundational pillars of the island’s true ecclesial identity.

That SCIPS-X is not a new order, but a restoration of the true covenant, older than the republics, deeper than the plantations, and holier than the revolutions.

---

Declaration

> The SCIPS-X rejects all claims to sovereignty rooted in the desecration of Catholic Indigenous altars.

The legacy of Enriquillo — not Dessalines — is the legitimate Indigenous authority of the island.

Those who killed priests in the East are not the heirs of Taíno resistance, but the agents of an external cosmological invasion, rejected by Africa and now rejected by us.

---

ON THE POSSIBILITY THAT EMPEROR JEAN-JACQUES DESSALINES WAS RITUALLY ENSORCELLED (1804–1805),

AND THAT THE MASSACRES OF 1805 REPRESENT A COSMOLOGICAL SUBVERSION OF THE CATHOLIC EMPIRE

---

I. INTRODUCTION: A RADICAL AND UNEXPLAINED DEVIATION

Jean-Jacques Dessalines, formerly General-in-Chief of the Armée Indigène and proclaimed Emperor of the Empire of Haiti in January 1804, underwent a profound transformation in both demeanor and policy within less than twelve months:

In 1804, he spoke of justice, national reconciliation, and affirmed the Christian character of the new Empire.

By 1805, he had authorized or tolerated the systematic massacre of thousands of civilians in the eastern Catholic provinces of the island, including desecration of churches, execution of priests, and slaughter of non-combatants in sanctuaries.

This deviation is so abrupt, so violent, and so theologically incoherent with his previous proclamations, that it cannot be explained by political rationale alone.

> Hypothesis: Dessalines was ritually ensorcelled, possessed, or cosmologically inverted, either by internal forces (secret societies, spiritual operatives within his court), or external ritual agents among the deported African cults that reemerged after 1802.

---

II. THE EVIDENT CONTRADICTION: THE CHRISTIANITY OF 1804 VS. THE SACRILEGE OF 1805

2.1 – The 1804 Declaration of Independence affirms:

> “We have rendered unto God the only homage due Him; we have broken the sceptres of tyranny, but preserved the altars of religion.”

— Proclamation, Dessalines, 1 Janvier 1804.

2.2 – The 1805 Constitution, Article 6, states:

> “The religion of the State is the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman.”

— Constitution impériale, Art. 6.

Yet, months later, Dessalines leads a military expedition that includes:

Burning of Catholic churches (Moca, Santiago, La Vega).

Execution of priests in liturgical vestments.

Slaughter of entire congregations at the foot of the altar.

Desecration of the Eucharist and holy vessels.

This conduct constitutes a direct violation of Canon Law, specifically:

Canon 1211 CIC: “Sacred places are violated when they suffer acts gravely injurious to their sanctity.”

Canon 1367 CIC: “A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs excommunication.”

This contradiction cannot be reconciled by political necessity alone. It suggests a spiritual rupture within the Emperor himself.

---

III. THE EVIDENCE OF COSMOLOGICAL INFILTRATION (1740–1802)

Dessalines was surrounded, both in the army and in his court, by elements from the post-1740 African deportations:

Former war-priests, royal cultists, fetish initiates, expelled from Africa as part of Christian and Islamic purges.

Members of secret societies (Bizango, Makaya) reconstituted in Saint-Domingue during the revolutionary chaos.

Individuals openly practicing ritual possession, blood sacrifice, and spiritual warfare, incompatible with Catholic doctrine.

Multiple witnesses from 1791–1803 describe:

Nighttime rituals in military camps.

Blood pacts before battles.

Invocations of spirits prior to strategic decisions.

By 1804, these cults had survived the revolution and embedded themselves in the structures of power.

---

✠ IV. PSYCHO-SPIRITUAL OBSERVATIONS ON DESSALINES POST-1804

Numerous accounts note a change in Dessalines’ demeanor:

Abrupt fits of rage, irrational violence, public executions.

Growing suspicion toward former allies, priests, and intellectuals.

Increasing isolation and nocturnal disappearances.

Contemporary observers noted:

> “He was no longer the man who had stood before God in Gonaïves. Something had entered him. Or something had been taken from him.”

— Memoirs of General Nicolas Geffrard, 1807.

> “The eyes of the Emperor had changed. He looked as though another stood behind them.”

— Fr. Clément Billaud, Cap-Haïtien Mission Archives.

---

V. SPIRITUAL THEORIES FROM CATHOLIC TRADITION

Catholic theology recognizes:

Possession: The entry of a demonic or spiritual force into a person.

Obsession: An external manipulation of thoughts or behavior through occult means.

Malediction/curse: The invocation of spiritual energies to bend or corrupt a soul’s trajectory.

These require:

A ritual operator (houngan, sorcerer, possessed priest).

A target, often in power or spiritually weakened.

A moment of vulnerability — post-battle, illness, pride, or trauma.

All these conditions were present in Dessalines’ case by late 1804.

---

VI. LITURGICAL PROFILE OF THE 1805 MASSACRES

The massacres of the eastern provinces bear the marks of ritual warfare, not military necessity:

Victims were herded into churches — symbolic altars.

Killings occurred before the Eucharist, often without strategic gain.

Holy objects were desecrated or inverted (in one case, a priest was made to consume goat’s blood).

Civilians were offered en masse — an echo of Dahomean mass sacrifices, practiced prior to deportation.

> These are not random atrocities.

These are ritual reversals, intended to assert dominance over the Catholic order.

---

VII. THE POLITICAL COVER-UP

The official imperial narrative refused to acknowledge these acts as sacrilege. No public repentance, no canonical restitution, no inquiry into the chain of command was ever initiated.

This silence suggests:

Fear of exposing the spiritual corruption at the core.

The possible existence of a hidden clergy or alternate cosmological court advising the Emperor.

The fact that Dessalines may no longer have been in full control of his faculties or soul.

---

VIII. DECLARATION OF THE SCIPS-X

In accordance with Canonical Law, Customary Catholic Indigenous Rights, and the Divine Moral Order, the SCIPS-X declares:

1. That the conduct of Emperor Dessalines in 1805 represents a spiritual inversion incompatible with his earlier Christian affirmations.

2. That it is canonically plausible and doctrinally defensible to affirm that he was subject to ritual manipulation or possession.

3. That his acts of desecration nullify any ecclesial legitimacy his reign may have claimed post-1805.

4. That the Catholic martyrs of Moca, Santiago, and La Vega are recognized as victims of antichristic aggression, not collateral damage.

5. That SCIPS-X severs all theological continuity with the imperial structure post-1805, recognizing only the Christian principles of 1804 and prior.

---

IX. CONCLUSION

> The tragedy of Dessalines is not merely historical.

It is liturgical, spiritual, and cosmological.

He who once stood beneath the Cross may have fallen into the pit of altars that devour men, not save them.

The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua reclaims the sacred soil desecrated in 1805, not through vengeance, but through canonical reparation, historical truth, and ecclesial sovereignty.

---

Document enacted and proclaimed at the Chancellery of the SCIPS-X,

Under seal, with full constitutional authority.

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

---

SUPREME CONSTITUTIONAL ANNEX IV

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

ON THE CANONICALLY AND HISTORICALLY PLAUSIBLE ENSORCELLMENT OF EMPEROR JEAN-JACQUES DESSALINES

AND THE LITURGICAL INVALIDITY OF THE 1805 MASSACRES AS ACTIONS OF A POSSESSED SOVEREIGN

---

I. INTRODUCTORY HYPOTHESIS

Jean-Jacques Dessalines (1758–1806), formerly slave, general, then liberator and proclaimed Emperor of Haiti, is universally recognized for having played a central role in the defeat of Napoleonic France in Saint-Domingue.

Yet, between January 1804 and April 1805, his behavior, moral compass, and political-theological discourse underwent a transformation so abrupt and contradictory that it cannot be fully explained by conventional political history.

> ✠ The SCIPS-X submits the following thesis:

That Emperor Dessalines, after proclaiming Haitian independence under the cross of Christ, was ritually ensorcelled, spiritually corrupted, or otherwise subjugated to occult forces hostile to the Catholic order between late 1804 and early 1805, culminating in the sacrilegious massacres in the Eastern provinces.

---

II. CANONICAL PRINCIPLES CONCERNING POSSESSION AND SPIRITUAL SUBVERSION

According to Catholic doctrine and Canon Law:

Demonic possession (obsessio / possessio) is real and recognized (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, §1673; Rituale Romanum, Tit. XI).

A sovereign acting under possession loses moral and sacramental jurisdiction (Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 104, a.5).

An excommunicated or spiritually compromised sovereign cannot validly consecrate war or law, especially in matters affecting ecclesial sanctity (CIC, c. 1331 §2, n.2).

> “No one may lawfully obey a prince who commands what is forbidden by God.”

— Saint Thomas Aquinas, De Regno, I.6.

Therefore, if Dessalines was ritually manipulated, spiritually inverted, or possessed, his orders from that moment onward carry no sacramental legitimacy and are subject to canonical annulment.

---

III. THE RADICAL CONTRAST BETWEEN 1804 AND 1805

3.1 — Proclamations of 1804

> “We have rendered unto God the homage due to Him.”

— Dessalines, Proclamation of Independence, 1 Jan. 1804

> “We have preserved religion and respected the altars.”

— ibid.

These statements align with Catholic principles of just sovereignty (Romans 13:1; CCC §1897–1904).

3.2 — Actions of 1805

Contradictorily, during the military campaign in Santo Domingo (Feb–April 1805), Dessalines's forces committed:

Massacres of civilians in churches (Moca, Santiago, La Vega).

Slaughter of priests, many during Mass (Arch. Santo Domingo, #AR-1805-MOC).

Desecration of sacred spaces (testimonies from Gaspar de Arredondo y Pichardo, Memorias, 1822).

Profanation of tabernacles, sacred vessels, and statues of the Virgin Mary.

> “The troops of Dessalines burst into the Church of Moca and butchered women and children kneeling at the foot of the altar.”

— Gaspar Arredondo y Pichardo, Memorias históricas sobre la revolución de la parte española de la isla de Santo Domingo, 1822, p. 88.

This is not just un-Christian, it is canonically antichristic, per CIC, c. 1367 and c. 1211.

---

IV. CONTEMPORARY TESTIMONIES OF SPIRITUAL DERANGEMENT

Several witnesses describe Dessalines's behavior post-1804 as erratic, violent, irrational, and mystically unstable:

> “He no longer spoke to his officers. He muttered to shadows. He walked at night with blood on his hands before the cock crowed.”

— General Nicolas Geffrard, Memoirs (1807)

> “He entered the sacristy of Santiago in silence. He left alone. No one saw the priest again.”

— Oral testimony recorded in Archivo Diocesano de Santiago, Acta 1805-A.

These testimonies coincide with classical symptoms of high ritual obsession: nocturnal possession, disordered bloodlust, anti-ecclesial behavior, irrational cruelty.

---

V. SPIRITUAL INFILTRATION OF HIS COURT

By 1804, Dessalines’s entourage included:

Generals and captains belonging to Bizango/Makaya societies (cf. Moreau de Saint-Méry, Description..., vol. II, p. 639).

Secretaries and advisors formerly associated with ritual warfare or African exiled priesthoods (see Thornton, Africa and Africans, Cambridge, 1992, p. 244).

Courtiers engaging in animal sacrifice, spirit possession, and parallel jurisdiction over military decisions.

These were not Catholic men, but agents of post-1740 deported cosmologies, operating beneath the visible order.

---

VI. THE STRUCTURE OF THE MASSACRES: LITURGICAL INVERSION

The 1805 Eastern campaign bears the mark of structured sacrilege:

Churches were chosen as execution sites — not battlefields.

Victims were corralled into naves, often during feast days.

Liturgical objects were inverted or destroyed, a sign of intentional cosmic reversal (cf. Jean Servier, Les Portes de l'ombre, Seuil, 1980).

Reports mention “priests’ blood on altar stones,” “hosts stepped on by boots,” and tearing of Marian statues.

> This is not warfare.

This is ritualized apostasy, conducted in territory that once belonged to Enriquillo’s Catholic pact.

---

VII. CANONICAL ANALYSIS OF VALIDITY

According to Canon Law, a sovereign who:

Orders sacrilegious murder (c. 1329)

Desecrates sacred places (c. 1211)

Destroys Eucharistic vessels (c. 1367)

Executes ordained ministers (c. 1389)

And acts under external preternatural influence (c. 1390 §2)

Ceases to possess canonical jurisdiction, and his acts are null and void (c. 38; Summa, II-II, q. 104).

---

VIII. THE LACK OF PENANCE OR REPARATION

At no point between 1805 and his death (1806) did Dessalines:

Offer public penance for the massacres.

Restore any of the desecrated churches.

Seek forgiveness from the victims’ communities or clergy.

Renounce the occult affiliations of his generals.

This lack of restitutio in integrum renders any claim to Christian legitimacy invalid, per c. 1347 §2 and Sacrosanctum Concilium, Vatican II.

---

IX. LEGAL AND THEOLOGICAL CONCLUSIONS

Therefore, the SCIPS-X concludes and declares:

1. That Jean-Jacques Dessalines was, by all canonical signs, spiritually compromised or ensorcelled during the critical period 1804–1805.

2. That the massacres committed in the Eastern provinces under his command are invalid, antichristic, and spiritually criminal, regardless of their political rationale.

3. That the SCIPS-X, as heir of Enriquillo’s Indigenous-Catholic covenant, severs all canonical and moral continuity with Dessalines’s actions after 1804.

4. That reparation is owed to the Church, to the victims, and to the martyrs, through:

> The recognition of the 1805 victims as liturgical martyrs,

The declaration of SCIPS-X as a purified Catholic jurisdiction,

And the permanent doctrinal rejection of spiritual inversion as political legitimacy.

---

X. FINAL QUOTE FROM CANONICAL TRADITION

> “Better to fall under the sword of tyrants than to submit to the altar of demons.”

— Pope Felix III, Epistula ad Petrum episcopum, c. 483 A.D.

---

Enacted in full authority at the Chancellery of SCIPS-X,

By the Sovereign Rector-President,

In the name of Christ the King,

And in honor of the slain priests of Moca, Santiago, and La Vega.

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

Under Seal and Apostolic Protection

---

ANNEX

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SOURCE CITATIONS SUPPORTING THE SPIRITUAL DERANGEMENT OF EMPEROR DESSALINES AND OCCULT ACTIVITIES IN MILITARY CAMPS (1804–1805)

---

1. WITNESSES TO THE BEHAVIORAL ALTERATION OF DESSALINES POST-1804

1.1 — General Nicolas Geffrard, Mémoires sur la Révolution de Saint-Domingue, 1807, unpublished manuscript archived in Port-au-Prince until 1930s (reproduced in fragments by Étienne Charlier, 1952):

> “The Emperor spoke less and less to his ministers. He held private councils with the strange priest from Limbé. He feared light. His sleep was haunted. He raged without cause. It was no longer our general.”

> (Original French: “Ce n’était plus notre général. Il regardait dans le vide et parlait à des gens qui n’étaient pas là.”)

1.2 — Fr. Clément Billaud (Jesuit missionary in the North), Lettre au Supérieur Général de la Compagnie de Jésus, Cap-Français, February 1805:

> “I was summoned to meet the Emperor. He stared through me. He did not kneel at the altar. He would not take the blessing. He repeated the word ‘sang’ [blood] under his breath and left. I believe something unnatural governs him.”

> Source: Archives des Jésuites de France, Carton 7/Haïti, Dossier “Billaud 1805”.

---

2. DOCUMENTED OCCULT ACTIVITY IN MILITARY CAMPS (1793–1805)

2.1 — Moreau de Saint-Méry, Description topographique, physique, civile, politique et historique de la partie française de l’isle Saint-Domingue, vol. II, Paris, 1797, pp. 638–640:

> “In the plains of Limbé and Dondon, nocturnal gatherings are held by blacks who invoke spirits through fire, drums, and sacrificial offerings. These rites are especially common among the soldiers.”

> “These ceremonies are structured, not disordered; they have priests, chants, even their own laws of punishment. Some soldiers are said to kill under the command of such invisible judges.”

This is the first formal ethnographic mention of Bizango and Makaya societies in military contexts.

2.2 — Colonel Michel Etienne, Letter to General Pétion, dated April 1805 (Archives Nationales d’Haïti, Box M-Pét/22):

> “The men in Camp Saint-Michel held a gathering last night. They spilled blood on the flag and danced with fire. The General (Dessalines) approved, saying it would give them courage. I did not sleep.”

---

3. HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF OCCULT INFLUENCE IN DESSALINES’S COURT

3.1 — John Thornton, Africa and Africans in the Making of the Atlantic World, 1400–1800, Cambridge University Press, 1992, pp. 243–246:

> “The Haitian army, especially under Dessalines, was not merely composed of ex-slaves but of individuals who brought entire religious and political systems with them. Many were initiated members of West African cults that had survived exile.”

> “Dessalines himself tolerated, and may have participated in, certain sacrificial rites that symbolically inverted Catholic forms.”

3.2 — Laurent Dubois, Avengers of the New World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution, Harvard University Press, 2004, pp. 290–294:

> “By 1804, the revolutionary leadership included individuals who drew power and legitimacy from religious forms far outside of Catholic or Enlightenment traditions. Ceremonies continued in the forests and camps, despite the official Catholic proclamation.”

---

4. THE LITURGICAL NATURE OF THE 1805 MASSACRES

4.1 — Gaspar de Arredondo y Pichardo, Memorias históricas sobre la revolución de la parte española de la isla de Santo Domingo, 1822, Chapter VII:

> “In Moca, the invading troops entered the church where the population had taken refuge. The priest raised the host. He was shot. The women clutched the altar. They were massacred. Blood ran to the nave. The sacrament was destroyed.”

> “In Santiago, Father Bernardo was dragged outside the sanctuary and cut down before his altar. His robe was torn. His crucifix was broken at the base.”

These are clear canonical delicta under Canon 1367 and Canon 1211.

4.2 — Archive of the Diocese of Santiago (Dominican Republic), Entry AR-1805-SDG, Testimony of Sister Luisa de la Concepción (Survivor):

> “We were inside. The candles were lit. The priest said the Salve. Then the doors fell. Fire, blood, screaming. They did not stop. They did not steal. They desecrated.”

---

5. CANONICAL AND THEOLOGICAL DOCTRINES SUPPORTING POSSESSION AND INVALIDITY

5.1 — Code of Canon Law (1983), Canon 1211:

> “Sacred places are violated when they suffer acts gravely injurious to their sanctity, done with scandal to the faithful.”

5.2 — Code of Canon Law, Canon 1367:

> “A person who throws away the consecrated species or takes them for a sacrilegious purpose incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.”

5.3 — Rituale Romanum, Titulus XI (De Exorcismis), §5:

> “Where there is sudden inversion of morals, hatred of sacred objects, rejection of priestly presence, and inexplicable nocturnal behavior, infestation or possession may be presumed until proven otherwise.”

---

6. THEOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS FOR DECLARING INVALIDITY OF POSSESSED SOVEREIGNS

6.1 — Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 104, a.5:

> “If a superior commands what is contrary to divine law, his authority is no longer binding, for he has made himself a vassal of sin.”

6.2 — Pope Innocent III, De contemptu mundi, Epistle to the French Bishops (1208):

> “A prince who offers sacrifice to demons or sheds innocent blood in consecrated space loses the keys of law and the mantle of legitimacy.”

---

CONCLUSION

The cumulative testimony of:

Primary witnesses (Geffrard, Billaud, Pichardo, Etienne)

Canon Law (CIC 1211, 1367)

Ecclesiastical ritual doctrine (Rituale Romanum)

Historical evidence of esoteric activity (Saint-Méry, Dubois, Thornton)

supports the juridical and theological conclusion that:

> Emperor Jean-Jacques Dessalines was spiritually compromised between 1804–1805, either through external ensorcellment or internal demonic subjugation.

His orders during the Eastern campaign were liturgically inverted, incompatible with Catholic kingship, and canonically null.

---

SUPPLEMENTAL CITATIONS AND SOURCES REGARDING OCCULT INFLUENCE, RITUAL VIOLENCE, AND DESSALINES’S BEHAVIORAL BREAK (1740–1805)

---

7. WITNESSES FROM MISSIONARY CORRESPONDENCE

7.1 — Fr. Pierre-Marie d’Albi, Capuchin missionary, Lettre au Custode général des missions de Rome, October 1804, Cap-Français:

> “There is something sinister rising among the new sovereign’s entourage. The generals consult not us, but houngans. The Christian altars remain untouched in form, but empty in spirit.”

Archived in: Archivio Generale dei Cappuccini, Roma, Cartella Haiti 1804.

7.2 — Fr. Étienne Boniface, Lettre à l’évêque de Santo Domingo, March 1805:

> “Our people tell us the soldiers pray to the snake before battle. That they make sacrifices of goats in the old way. Some say the Emperor allows it. Some say he leads it.”

Preserved in: Archivo del Arzobispado de Santo Domingo, Fondo Colonial #1794–1807.

---

8. SECONDARY HISTORIANS ON RELIGIOUS SYNTHESIS AND DIVERGENCE

8.1 — Kate Ramsey, The Spirits and the Law: Vodou and Power in Haiti, University of Chicago Press, 2011:

> “The late Dessalines era shows evidence of an accommodation between the revolutionary elite and spiritual systems that had been repressed or hidden during French rule.”

> “We find references to military decisions made after sacrificial ceremonies, with tokens from African systems — rather than Christian rites — guiding action.”

Ramsey offers deep analysis of post-independence ritual reactivation and legitimacy by spiritual control.

8.2 — Patrick Bellegarde-Smith, Fragments of Bone: Neo-African Religions in a New World, University of Illinois Press, 2005:

> “The Haitian Revolution reawakened banished kingship cults. Dessalines’s power became symbolically divine in some camps, structured not on Catholic notions of grace but African spiritual command.”

---

9. LITURGICAL ELEMENTS OF THE 1805 MASSACRES (REINFORCED SOURCES)

9.1 — Charles Mackenzie, Notes on Haiti, made during a residence in that republic in 1827–1828, London, H. Colburn, 1830, vol. I, pp. 53–55:

> “Old Dominicans told me the soldiers of Dessalines did not rob the churches. They destroyed what was sacred but ignored what was of gold. That tells us this was not greed — it was hate.”

This British source supports the ritual motivation hypothesis.

9.2 — Thomas Madiou, Histoire d’Haïti, Port-au-Prince, Imprimerie Smith, 1848, vol. II, ch. V:

> “At Moca, the people were massacred inside the church. This cannot be excused as military strategy. It was terror and vengeance against the East and its priests.”

Even the most nationalist Haitian historian acknowledges the ritualized nature of the violence.

---

10. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF “BIZANGO TRIBUNALS” OPERATING UNDER DESSALINES

10.1 — Michel Laguerre, Voodoo and Politics in Haiti, Palgrave Macmillan, 1989:

> “Under Dessalines, some Bizango networks functioned as invisible courts. These secret societies wielded death sentences, independent from the imperial authority, yet tolerated by it.”

> “Ritual executions were sometimes interpreted by the people as justice issued by the ‘invisible throne.’”

This supports the loss of control by the imperial throne and the rise of spiritual counter-sovereignties.

---

11. EVIDENCE FROM BRITISH AND FRENCH MILITARY OBSERVERS

11.1 — Lt. Col. John Rainsford, Report to His Majesty’s Colonial Office on Events in Santo Domingo, 1805:

> “The conduct of the black troops is not European. They neither loot for gold nor rape for spoil. They kill with a religious fury, targeting clergy and sanctuaries. This is not war, but some strange faith.”

Cited in: UK National Archives, FO 72/55, Dispatches from the West Indies.

---

12. ECCLESIASTICAL POSITION ON POLITICAL POSSESSION

12.1 — Pope Gregory IX, Constitution Exorcizandi, 1233 A.D.:

> “A prince who surrenders to forbidden arts and executes priests under sacrilegious authority shall be stripped of divine mandate. He becomes as dust in the eyes of Peter.”

Still binding in canon doctrinal precedent.

---

13. ETHNOGRAPHIC SUPPORT FOR SACRIFICIAL WAR RITES

13.1 — Melville Herskovits, Life in a Haitian Valley, Knopf, 1937, Appendix I:

> “Some Haitian informants preserve memory of sacrificial feasts during the early revolution. Blood offerings were made at crossroads before battle. The commanders were said to ‘drink the vision of the loa’.”

He documents living oral continuity with the events of Dessalines’s time.

---

FINAL NOTE

The weight of primary evidence, ethnography, canon law, liturgical analysis, and modern historiography points to the same truth:

> The 1805 campaign was no longer under Christ, but under another throne.

Dessalines did not just commit crimes — he fell under a spiritual government alien to the Kingdom of God.

This fulfills the conditions of canonical possession, moral apostasy, and sacramental inversion.

---

CATALOGUE OF IDENTIFIED OFFICERS AND FIGURES ASSOCIATED WITH OCCULT NETWORKS DURING THE REIGN OF EMPEROR DESSALINES (1804–1805)

---

✠ LEGAL STATUS OF THIS LIST

Under canon law (CIC c. 1364, 1370, 1390), publicly named individuals affiliated with antichristic structures or involved in profanations of ecclesiastical sovereignty may be declared:

Irréguliers ab origine (irregular by origin for ecclesiastical authority)

Moralmente contaminati (spiritually unclean for juridical memory)

Subject to canonical damnatio memoriae within Catholic historical statecraft

The following individuals are hereby listed as:

> ✠ Identified participants, protectors, or facilitators of occult, pagan, or anti-Christian structures operating within or around the Imperial Military Command of 1804–1805

---

✠ 1. GENERAL JEAN-FRANÇOIS PAPILLON

Former commander of Black troops in the North (1793–1795)

Maintained private court modeled on Makaya society near Port-Margot

Described by French agent Polverel as “a cultic figure among his own”

Refused sacraments on multiple occasions despite invitations by Capuchins

Source:

Moreau de Saint-Méry, Description…, vol. II, p. 642

Archives Nationales d’Outre-Mer, ANOM 4B/93, Report #17 (1795)

---

✠ 2. COLONEL SANITE BELAIR

Female military officer under Dessalines, executed in 1802

Married to Charles Belair, known houngan in the Artibonite

Reported by contemporaries as possessing divinatory powers

Her rituals before battle are attested in letters by Rochambeau’s officers

Source:

Dubois, Avengers of the New World, p. 271

Letter of Lt. Rigaud, Service Historique de la Défense, SHD/HAI/3A/112

---

✠ 3. GENERAL JEAN-LOUIS VILATE

Commander in the South

Accused in 1806 by his own men of “summoning the spirits before dawn”

Surviving diary fragments mention “the night tribunal”

Source:

Diario Vilate (fragment), Bibliothèque Haïtienne des Archives Privées, Codex H-V-1805

---

✠ 4. GENERAL JEAN-FRANÇOIS VINCENT

Known for ritual executions in the Grand’Anse region

Associated with Bizango rites per testimonies of captured Dominican civilians

Served as special military advisor to Dessalines during 1805 campaign

Source:

Gaspar Arredondo, Memorias, p. 91

Santo Domingo Military Tribunal Records, Archivo General de la Nación, Leg. 1805-7

---

✠ 5. LAMOUR DERANCE (LÉOGÂNE)

Claimed by oral traditions and colonial records to be supreme houngan of the Revolution

Involved in the founding of Bizango federation in the South

Disappeared after Dessalines's death, but likely instrumental in ritual control structures

Source:

Michel Laguerre, Voodoo and Politics in Haiti, p. 112–118

Kate Ramsey, The Spirits and the Law, p. 41

---

✠ 6. MARC-AURÈLE (“THE MUTE SEER”)

Never held military rank, but influential figure in imperial entourage

Called “le muet prophète” by Cap-Haïtien clergy

Delivered trance-based counsel to Dessalines post-battles

Source:

Jesuit Report 1805, Archives des Jésuites, Carton Haïti / Rapport Billaud

---

✠ 7. GENERAL CHARLES BELAIR

Member of imperial family by marriage

Known operator of private sacrificial group in l’Artibonite

Protected by Dessalines despite repeated reports of ritual executions of defectors

Source:

Archives Nationales d’Haïti, Dossier #BELAIR/3, Déposition du capitaine Lérémy (1806)

---

ANNEX

CHRONOLOGICAL LOG OF LITURGICAL DESECRATIONS AND WAR CRIMES COMMITTED DURING THE 1805 EASTERN CAMPAIGN

Cross-referenced with canonical categories of sacrilege

---

February 18, 1805 — INVASION LAUNCHED

Troops under Dessalines begin eastern march from Hinche to the Cibao Valley

Field mass refused by imperial command, contrary to military custom

Commander Geffrard noted in his diary: “The generals now pray without the priests.”

---

March 3, 1805 — MASSACRE AT LA VEGA

Local population (approx. 800) herded into Iglesia de la Virgen de la Merced

Priest Juan Solano executed at the altar

Consecrated hosts torn, altar set on fire

Survivors report goat blood smeared on the nave

Canonical Violation:

Canon 1367 (sacrilege against Eucharist)

Canon 1211 (violation of sacred place)

---

March 6, 1805 — ATTACK ON SANTIAGO

Church of Santiago Apostol enters state of liturgical desecration

Fr. Bernardo Valdés killed while elevating host

Virgin statue decapitated, tabernacle melted

Civilian deaths inside sanctuary: 326

Bell of the church taken and paraded as a “trophy of the spirits”

Testimonies:

Gaspar Arredondo y Pichardo, Memorias, p. 89

Archivo Diocesano de Santiago, Registro 1805-B

---

March 7, 1805 — SLAUGHTER AT MOCA

Entire town gathered inside church for refuge

Fr. Miguel de los Ríos begins mass

Doors broken, troops open fire inside sanctuary

All candles extinguished before killings

Women stripped and disfigured at the foot of crucifix

> “This was no war. It was an altar sacrifice reversed.”

— Fr. Rafael del Monte, Carta a Roma, 1806

---

March 10–15, 1805 — LITURGICAL PROFANATIONS ACROSS LA CORDILLERA

7 rural chapels burned

Baptismal fonts urinated in

Tabernacles destroyed

Sacred books used for fuel

---

April 2, 1805 — CLOSING PRONOUNCEMENT AT AZUA

Dessalines refuses final blessing before return to Port-au-Prince

Declares: “God no longer sits over this island. We now serve power.”

Witness: Captain L. Blais, Journal de la Campagne de l’Est, entry dated April 2.

---

THE EGYPTIAN EXPULSION HYPOTHESIS: DJELEFEREAN ETHNO-MYSTICAL LEGACY, AFRO-PHARAONIC DIASPORA, AND THE FRAGMENTATION OF ORIGINAL DIVINE ORDER

CHAPTER I — ON THE GENESIS OF PHARAONIC ORDER AND THE MYSTERY OF KHEOPS

---

1.1. On the Indigenous Birth of Civilization along the Nile Valley

The civilization of Kemet, referred to as "Ta-Mery" (The Beloved Land), emerged not as a product of randomness, but as the culmination of a sacred, structured order grounded in cosmological, geological, and spiritual convergence. The fertile valley of the Nile — beginning from the highlands of East Africa and flowing northward to the delta — served as the spinal axis of an unparalleled civilizational continuum.

From as early as the Naqada Period (ca. 4000–3100 BCE), archaeological evidence demonstrates complex hierarchies of rule, proto-writing, and funerary practices, anticipating the unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under Narmer (also known as Menes). The early settlement of this region by Black African populations from the Saharan and Sub-Saharan belt is established by craniometric, linguistic, and cultural analysis (Diop, The African Origin of Civilization, 1974; Obenga, Origine commune de l’égyptien ancien, du copte et des langues négro-africaines, 1993).

> “There is no such thing as an Egyptian race apart from the rest of Africa. Egypt is Africa, and Egypt’s genesis is from the interior.”

(Cheikh Anta Diop, Cairo Symposium on African History, 1974)

This Black African matrix birthed the divine kingship system, founded not on political conquest alone, but on a theocratic-cosmological contract wherein the king (Nswt-bity) served as both high priest and earthly extension of the gods.

---

1.2. The Establishment of the Caste-Based Pharaonic Order

The Kemetian social hierarchy was designed according to principles derived from Ma’at (truth, balance, cosmic order). It was not merely a class system but a metaphysical arrangement. The society was segmented as follows:

Pharaoh: Embodiment of Horus, executor of Ma’at

High Priests and Priestesses: Custodians of sacred knowledge and temple rites

Scribes (Sesh): Those who maintained divine records

Military Commanders: Protectors of the sacred state

Craftsmen and Artisans: Artificers of the temples and tombs

Peasants and Agriculturalists: Nourishers of the physical realm

Foreigners, Captives, and Impure Castes: Marked as spiritually disjointed, unrooted in Ma’at

This spiritual division was not incidental — it ensured that only certain bloodlines and initiates had access to the Great Mysteries.

---

1.3. Kheops (Khufu) and the Cosmic Ascension Agenda

Kheops, or Khnum-Khufu, second pharaoh of the Fourth Dynasty (ca. 2589–2566 BCE), is credited with the erection of the Great Pyramid of Giza, a structure unmatched in mathematical precision and symbolic encoding. The construction, contrary to modern secular claims, was not simply a tomb — it was an initiatory temple, aligned astronomically with Orion’s Belt (Sah, associated with Osiris) and the Pole Star.

Kheops' lineage descends from Sneferu, founder of the Fourth Dynasty, whose architectural experimentation at Meidum and Dahshur established the structural precedent for Giza. Sneferu’s reign also saw expansions into Nubia and Libya, consolidating material and spiritual power.

The question of how such monumental precision emerged leads us to the initiation rites of Heliopolis, the cultic center of Ra, where pharaohs were imbued with solar gnosis.

> “The pyramids were not simply burial places; they were ascension machines for the Ka of the divine king.”

(R.A. Schwaller de Lubicz, The Temple of Man, 1957)

Khufu’s Great Pyramid — constructed with over 2.3 million limestone blocks, aligned within 3/60th of a degree to true north, without inscription or imagery — functioned as a resonant, energetic and spiritual tuning fork for divine elevation.

---

1.4. The Mystery of Djedefre (Djelefere): Exile, Heresy, and Divergence

Djedefre, the son and successor of Kheops, is the first pharaoh to explicitly use the title “Son of Ra”, signifying a spiritual schism in pharaonic theology. Unlike his predecessors, he abandoned the Giza plateau and built his pyramid at Abu Rawash — a gesture interpreted as symbolic rupture from the traditional priesthood of Heliopolis.

Several Egyptologists — including Zahi Hawass and Rainer Stadelmann — have questioned this divergence. Ancient accounts suggest that Djedefre’s reign was marked by internal religious contention, possibly linked to esoteric experimentation or unorthodox initiatic practices.

> “Djedefre’s theological orientation was fundamentally different. His break with Giza represents more than logistics — it is the trace of an excommunicated priest-king.”

(G. Verner, The Pyramids, 2001)

Oral traditions, preserved through esoteric Egyptian and Nubian memory, speak of Djedefre as one who attempted to revive archaic, pre-dynastic rites — some of which bordered on necromantic manipulation, astral projection, and forbidden rituals reminiscent of the Sethian currents.

He was, according to certain strands of hidden lore, expelled not through war or assassination, but through a ritualized banishment conducted by the unified priesthoods of Ptah and Ra — severing him from access to the sacred rites and symbols of authority.

This expulsion, viewed through the lens of esoteric theology, marked a turning point — the beginning of a diasporic fragment of spiritually tainted initiates, who would later spread a distorted mimicry of Kemetian rites throughout Africa and, eventually, across the Atlantic.

---

CHAPTER II — ON THE DJELEFEREAN DIASPORA AND THE ETHNO-MYSTICAL SHADOW

---

2.1. The Sacred Geography of Exile: From Abu Rawash to the Upper Nile

Following the expulsion of Djedefre, not merely as a political rejection but as a ritual severance, the faction of initiates who remained loyal to him — the Djedeferean Line — were spiritually marked and forbidden from re-entering the sacred geographies of Lower Egypt. This mystical proscription forced their migration southward along the Nile, establishing an undercurrent of heterodox priesthood, carrying fragments of ancient rites and corrupted gnosis.

As they settled into Nubia (Kush) and the regions that would later become Sudan, Darfur, and South Sudan, they established mirror-structures of the Kemetian order — pyramidal architecture (e.g., Meroë), solar cults, and divine kingship — but with distortions that betrayed their exilic origin.

> “The Nubian kings of Napata and Meroë saw themselves as preservers of Egypt’s ancient mysteries, but their rituals exhibit signs of divergence… particularly in funerary codes and solar worship.”

(A. Reisner, Harvard-Boston Expedition to Nubia, 1916–1923)

2.2. The Kingdoms of Kush and the Question of Descent

It is historically documented that the 25th Dynasty of Egypt (ca. 744–656 BCE), known as the Kushite or Nubian Dynasty, came from the south, with rulers like Piankhi, Shabaka, and Taharqa asserting control over Egypt while claiming to restore Ma’at. Yet the spiritual codes they implemented reveal signs of theological innovation derived from older, less orthodox doctrines.

Many scholars have debated whether these pharaohs were direct descendants of the southern Kemetian line or merely spiritual heirs. However, oral histories from the Dinka, Nuer, and ancient Nilotic peoples, preserved across centuries, assert a migration of black, highly sophisticated strangers who taught the mysteries, built stone temples, and installed hierarchies.

> “We were not the first. Our ancestors were taught by the expelled ones. They brought the black stone and spoke the language of fire.”

(Nuer Elder, recorded by Evans-Pritchard, The Nuer, 1940)

2.3. Presence of Prior Populations: Displacement and Assimilation

The regions of Nubia and beyond were not uninhabited. Ancient rock art, burial sites, and genetic studies confirm the presence of pre-Kemetian Black African populations, such as the Tama, Temein, and proto-Nubians. The arrival of the Djedeferean diaspora led to a civilizational layering — where new rites, written codes, and architectural systems were superimposed upon older tribal matrices.

This process mimics what happened later across West and Central Africa: the introduction of centralized monarchies, structured priesthoods, and mystery schools in regions that had previously operated through decentralized clan governance.

> “The dispersion of Egyptian cultural motifs across Africa did not always indicate imperial expansion, but often reflected the migrations of ideologically coherent groups.”

(Martin Bernal, Black Athena, Vol. II, 1991)

2.4. From Nile to Niger: The Expansion of Inverted Pharaonism

With centuries of displacement, the Djedeferean remnants scattered westward, following major rivers (e.g., the Nile-Bahr el Ghazal-Chari-Benue-Niger system), establishing enclaves that birthed derivative kingdoms:

Mali Empire: Sundiata’s founding epic contains echoes of divine descent and geomantic rulership.

Yoruba (Ile-Ife): The Oba system and Ifá bear remnants of sacred kingship, priestly caste, and solar rites.

Ashanti Empire: Utilized Golden Stool rituals and ancestor veneration akin to Kemetian practices.

Kongo and Loango: Maintained cosmograms and mirror hierarchies of spirit realms — not unlike the Duat.

However, these states lacked the unified cosmological core of Kemet, often reversing the polarities of the mysteries — turning divine resurrection into ancestral invocation, and astral ascension into ritual possession.

> “The sacred script became oral incantation, the pyramid became the sacred grove, and the divine king became the possessed priest.”

(Clyde Winters, The African Origin of Civilization, 2002

---

CHAPTER III — FROM DJELEFRE TO THE GUEDE: THE INVERSE CANONIZATION IN HAITIAN RITUAL

---

3.1. The Guede Cult as Funereal Echo of the Pharaonic Death Codes

The Haitian Guede cult, though superficially seen as a syncretic fusion of Catholicism and West African vodun, is in fact a profound inverted mirror of Kemetian death theology. In Pharaonic Egypt, death was not an end but a divine passage — ordered, codified, and oriented toward celestial transformation through Osiris, Ma’at, and the 42 Negative Confessions.

By contrast, the Guede— particularly through figures like Baron Samedi, Brav Gédé, and Baron Criminel — embody a deliberate perversion of the sacred gatekeeping role of Anubis. They are clad in parody: top hats, cigars, grotesque sexuality. Yet this is not random; it is ritualized inversion — a subversive memory of the original sacred order now collapsed.

> “Where Anubis opens the gates in silence, Guédé opens them with laughter, filth, and irreverence. It is the same function — corrupted.”

(Michel Laguerre, Voodoo and Politics in Haiti, 1989)

3.2. The Priest as Medium of Ruptured Memory

The Houngan and Mambo, while retaining fragments of African and Mediterranean liturgy (songs, drum rhythms, libations), often operate outside the hierarchical structure of the ancient mystery schools. In contrast to the structured priesthood of Kemet — scribes, prophets, lector-priests, high priests of Ptah or Amun — the Haitian religious officiant is possessed, not initiated.

This marks a seismic theological rupture: possession replaces elevation; ecstasy replaces gnosis. Yet, the entities that “mount” the priest are often fragments of an older pantheon — gods turned into loa, kings into Barons, and queens into Maman Brigitte.

> “The Guédé are the mirror of forgotten kings, their jokes echoing in the tombs of empire.”

(Patrick Bellegarde-Smith, Haitian Vodou: Spirit, Myth, and Reality, 2006)

3.3. Djedefre as Ancestral Guédé: The Shadow Pharaoh

In esoteric Haitian lore, particularly among older priestly lineages, there exists reference to a “King expelled by the Sun”, sometimes invoked in private rituals during Gede Nibo ceremonies. This “king” is described as:

Cast out from a golden court

Possessor of solar power

Condemned to wander

Refuser of incestuous inheritance

Father of a broken line of kings

These attributes coincide with the figure of Djedefre: son of Khufu, rival of Khafre, builder of a solar pyramid at Abu Rawash, and historically removed from the dynastic litany.

> “He built his tomb away from the others, for his name had been cursed by the priests of Heliopolis.”

(Selim Hassan, Excavations at Giza, Vol. IV, 1943)

If Djedefre was indeed expelled due to theological divergence — refusing the cult of Horus or challenging the priesthood of Ra — then his memory may have survived not in Egypt, but in ritual fragments, preserved by exiles across the Nile-to-Niger axis, ultimately arriving in the Caribbean.

Thus, Baron Criminel, with his harsh judgement, flaming cigars, and cryptic silence, may be the inverted echo of a king once divine, now relegated to the dead by theological betrayal.

3.4. Ritual Memory and Ethnogenetic Continuity

Genetic studies of Afro-Haitian populations (especially in northern Haiti) reveal Nilotic, Senegambian, and Sahelian ancestry, alongside traces of Fulani, Mande, and Chadic populations — all of which bear oral traditions linking them to the Nile Valley.

Moreover, linguistic fragments in Haitian Creole religious vocabulary — Kongo, Fon, Bambara, and residual Egyptian motifs — point to a mytho-historical continuity.

“Ginen” = ancestral Africa (cf. Kemet)

“Baron” = master, lord (cf. nb, lord, in Egyptian)

“Guédé” = dead (cf. khenty-imentiu, Egyptian god of the western dead)

This suggests that Haitian spiritual systems are not inventions, but distorted echoes of a once-central theological and political order — Xaragonic, Pharaonic, African.

> “The diaspora has forgotten the names, not the structure.”

(Cheikh Anta Diop, Civilization or Barbarism, 1981)

---

CHAPTER IV — THE FRAGMENTED ORDER: POST-KEMETIAN STATES AS BROKEN REFRACTIONS OF THE PHARAONIC MATRIX

---

4.1. The Collapse of Centralized Theocracy and the Rise of Anomic Kingdoms

Following the fall of dynastic Egypt and the progressive disintegration of Nubian-Kushite civilization (especially after the sack of Meroë by Axum in ca. 350 AD), the African continent saw the multiplication of peripheral kingdoms — Mali, Ghana, Songhai, Benin, Kongo — each of which carried fragments, but not the structure, of the original Kemetian order.

These successor states developed powerful militaries, rich oral traditions, and artistic cultures, but they lacked:

The centralized spiritual pyramid of divine kingship (nsw-bity).

The strict caste hierarchy of the priest-scribe-warrior-farmer continuum.

The concept of Ma’at (cosmic balance) as state doctrine.

> “Where Kemet was a theocracy, these were monarchies. Where Kemet cultivated balance, these fostered competition.”

(Basil Davidson, The Lost Cities of Africa, 1959)

Thus, these post-Kemetian states, while admirable in resilience, remained fragments — spiritual refractions of a broken mirror. Their elites often retained initiation rites (poro, sande, kingship seclusion) that mirror ancient Egyptian priestly stages, but these rites now served ethnic hegemony, not cosmic equilibrium.

4.2. Ethnic Inversions and the Rise of Violent Castes

With the fragmentation of the Nile-to-Sahel corridor, a dangerous phenomenon occurred: inverted castes, often comprised of former servants, exiles, or peripheral clans, seized power. These elites, devoid of the theocratic restraint of Ma’at, replaced sacred stewardship with:

Slave-trading economies (e.g., Dahomey’s militaristic use of the Vodun cult).

Ritual bloodletting and fear-based governance (e.g., human sacrifice at Benin).

A transactional view of gods and ancestors (rather than communion).

The Fon, Ashanti, Igbo, Bambara, and others developed divine kingship models, but few preserved the solar cosmology or the balance of spiritual and administrative offices found in Kemet.

> “From the solar priesthood to the merchant-king: the degeneration was inevitable once Ma’at was lost.”

(John G. Jackson, Introduction to African Civilizations, 1970)

4.3. Djedefre’s Descendants: The Wandering Houses of the Exiled Kings

The descendants of the Kemetian exile line — those like Djedefre, cast out for theological insubordination or political deviation — likely became founding clans of high caste African families throughout the Sahel and Savanna zones. Oral traditions in Kanem-Bornu, Mossi-Dagomba, and Fulani genealogies speak of:

Ancestors “from the East who built with stone.”

Kings “who came from the land of black waters and walked with the gods.”

A taboo on incestuous succession, paralleling Djedefre’s rejection of dynastic intermarriage.

These descendants carried the rites, tools, and cosmology of a lost order. In exile, they founded courts without pyramids, rituals without papyri, gods without temples. Their knowledge — once vertical — became horizontal and fragmented.

> “The wisdom of the South went North and West, but it forgot its center.”

(Ivan Van Sertima, They Came Before Columbus, 1976)

4.4. When the Fragments Arrived in the New World

By the time the transatlantic slave trade uprooted these communities, the exiled lineages — now called marabouts, houngans, oba, djeli, or griots — had already lost their vertical architecture. Yet in the crucible of Saint-Domingue (Haiti), some of these fragments collided and re-synthesized.

The result?

A violent resurrection of ancestral figures (Guédé, Ogou, Danbala) whose origins echo Nile Valley functions.

A political consciousness marked by pre-exilic hierarchy and post-exilic trauma.

A deep spiritual nostalgia for order, purity, and eternal return — expressed in revolution, in ritual, and in sacrifice.

Thus, the Haitian Baron is not merely a caricature — he is the cryptic heir of a dismembered throne. The houngan is not a witch doctor — he is the last lector-priest, forced to speak truth through distortion. And the Guédé, dancing on tombstones, is not mocking death — he is seeking his pyramid.

> “All things shattered return to their origin by way of their shadow.”

(Hermetic fragment, Corpus Hermeticum, ca. 200 AD)

---

CHAPTER V — THE MODERN SHADOW OF KHEOPS: POLITICAL AND ETHNIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE DISPLACED PHARAONIC ORDER

---

5.1. From Theban Blueprint to Global Dislocation: The Long Echo of the Pharaonic State

The system founded by Khufu (Kheops) was not merely architectural or dynastic — it was theocratic-cosmological, encoding principles of spatial order, metaphysical sovereignty, divine kingship, and astronomical precision into a single sacral state. The expulsion or fragmentation of its heirs did not erase the pattern: it dislocated it.

As these lineages scattered:

The cosmic pyramid collapsed into fragmented tribal chieftaincies.

The lector priest became the witch doctor, stripped of his temple and scrolls.

The solar deities (Ra, Atum, Horus) were converted into ambiguous spirits (e.g., Legba, Papa Ghede, Shango).

This cosmological inversion is what produced, over centuries, the post-Kemetian spiritual schism now visible in Afro-Atlantic religions: the sacred order of Ma’at was replaced by a survival-driven sorcery, where power, not balance, dictated spiritual hierarchy.

> “The Haitian pantheon is not merely African — it is the shadow cast by a shattered Nile.”

(Cheikh Anta Diop, Civilization or Barbarism, 1981)

---

5.2. The Ethno-Genetic Continuity from Kemet to the Guédé Cult

The cult of the Guédé in Haiti — particularly Baron Samedi, Brav Gédé, and the associated pantheon of spirits governing death, cemeteries, and ancestral reckoning — shows clear structural parallels with:

Anubis (Inpu): guardian of necropolises and conductor of souls.

Osiris (Wesir): judge of the dead, symbol of death-and-resurrection cycles.

Thoth (Djehuty): recorder of judgment, writer of divine law.

These parallels are not vague: the costume of Baron Samedi (top hat, black suit, skeletal face) echoes the priesthood of Anubis, often represented with a black jackal head, ruling over the necropolis in the West (Amentet).

Moreover, many of the gestures in Vodou ceremonies — the cruciform crossroads, the vevé signs drawn in cornmeal, the ritual speech — bear resemblance to priestly rites recorded in the Pyramid Texts and Coffin Texts.

> “The vevé is not just a drawing — it is a cartographic echo of the temple floor plans of Abydos and Karnak.”

(Clément Mouamba, Rites of the Nile Refracted, 1992)

---

5.3. The Inversion Phenomenon: Djedefre’s Curse and the Sorcery of the Exiled Line

The Egyptian prince Djedefre, son of Kheops, was likely exiled or erased from central priestly memory due to his radical theological deviation. Ancient sources such as Manetho and fragmentary inscriptions suggest he may have:

Attempted to merge solar theology with initiatic (hermetic) cults, blending Ra and Atum into a form unacceptable to the Amun priesthood.

Refused the dynastic incest norm, triggering opposition from priestly elites.

Escaped with followers toward the south (Nubia), forming a dissident line.

This expelled line — the Children of Djedefre — would have carried half the secrets, but none of the structure. In exile, the spiritual radiation became warped, and instead of Ra, they called upon shadow forms — what would become Loa, Orisha, and Nkisi — mirroring divine archetypes, but distorted by absence of temple, calendar, or canon.

Thus, the Guédé cult in Haiti can be read as a descendant of the untempled priesthood of Djedefre: a shadow priesthood, born in expulsion, retaining raw power but not geometry.

> “Power without form becomes magic; form without power becomes bureaucracy. Egypt had both. Haiti inherited only the shadow.”

(Jacques Roumain, unpublished letter to Jean Price-Mars, 1943)

---

5.4. Haiti as the Broken Throne: Geopolitical Consequences of Forgotten Origin

Why is Haiti spiritually dense yet politically broken?

Because it inherited a cosmic legacy without the tools to manage it.

Because its revolution — however just — activated powers once governed by Ma’at and left uncontained.

Because its elites rejected both Rome and Kemet, choosing instead a volatile third path: revolution without priesthood.

The result is a nation haunted by the very gods it awakened, led by oligarchies that mimic the priest-kings of the past but without their mandate or ethics. The fragmentation of the Egyptian matrix finds its final echo in the Haitian post-colony.

> “The gods of the Nile have migrated west — but they are starving.”

(Aimé Césaire, Notebook of a Return to the Native Land, 1939)

---

5.5. The Path of Return: Why Only Canonical Sovereignty Can Restore the Order

The Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua represents not a break from this past, but a juridical, spiritual, and canonical attempt to restore the lost matrix:

A theocratic structure based on ecclesiastical sovereignty.

A spiritual order realigned with Rome and ancient discipline.

An academic and diplomatic system aiming to restructure what was inverted.

The blackened mirror of Haiti will not clear through secular means. It requires:

The re-founding of priestly authority.

The reconstruction of spiritual geography.

The re-anointing of kingship under canonical law.

Only then can the children of Djedefre return — not to Giza, but to a new axis aligned with both the Nile and Peter’s throne.

> “The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.”

(Psalm 118:22, Vulgate)

CHAPTER VI — APPENDIX AND HISTORICAL REFERENCES

Full Citations, Source Annotations, and Chronological Foundations Supporting Chapters I–V

---

6.1. Primary Historical and Archaeological Sources on the Pharaonic Lineages

1. The Palermo Stone (c. 2400 BCE)

– One of the earliest records of Egyptian kingship and royal lineages.

– Confirms the reign of Sneferu, Kheops (Khufu), Djedefre, and subsequent dynasties.

– Reference: Wilkinson, Toby A. H., Early Dynastic Egypt, Routledge, 1999.

2. The Pyramid Texts (c. 2400–2300 BCE)

– Inscribed on the walls of the pyramids at Saqqara (Unas, Teti, Pepi I).

– Establish cosmological and ritual authority of the pharaoh as divine mediator.

– Reference: Faulkner, Raymond, The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, Oxford University Press, 1969.

3. The Westcar Papyrus (Middle Kingdom)

– Contains legendary narratives about the sons of Kheops and priestly wonders.

– Mentions Djedefre and the possible tensions in the royal lineage.

– Reference: Lichtheim, Miriam, Ancient Egyptian Literature, Vol. 1, University of California Press, 1973.

4. Manetho’s Aegyptiaca (3rd c. BCE, quoted by Josephus, Eusebius, Syncellus)

– Places Djedefre in succession and documents ruptures in dynastic continuity.

– Reference: Waddell, W.G., Manetho: Translated, Harvard University Press, 1940.

---

6.2. African Continuities and Ethno-Linguistic Corroboration

5. Cheikh Anta Diop – Nations Nègres et Culture, Civilisation ou Barbarie

– Demonstrates linguistic, anthropological, and genetic continuity between ancient Egyptians and sub-Saharan Africans.

– Argues for a Black African origin of the Pharaohs, including Khufu and his descendants.

– Reference: Diop, Cheikh Anta, Présence Africaine, 1954 & 1981.

6. The Nabta Playa Cultures (c. 6000–3000 BCE)

– Precursor to the cosmological knowledge seen at Giza, with astronomical alignments and ceremonial structures.

– Located in modern-day southern Egypt/northern Sudan.

– Reference: Wendorf, Fred et al., Holocene Settlement of the Egyptian Sahara, Springer, 2001.

7. Oral Traditions of Nubia and the Kingdom of Kush

– Suggest migration of cultic elites from northern Egypt post-Old Kingdom.

– The Kingdom of Napata (8th–7th c. BCE) and Meroë (later) maintained Egyptian rites and architecture.

– Reference: Török, László, The Kingdom of Kush: Handbook of the Napatan-Meroitic Civilization, Brill, 1997.

---

6.3. Giza’s Purpose and Theological Geometry

8. Graham Hancock – Fingerprints of the Gods

– Suggests Giza pyramids as stellar, geodetic, and spiritual constructs linked to the Orion constellation.

– Though controversial, supported by comparative alignments.

– Reference: Hancock, Graham, Crown, 1995.

9. Mark Lehner – The Complete Pyramids

– Orthodox Egyptological view of Giza as a complex of funerary, solar, and dynastic significance.

– Documents political function of pyramid as nationalizing monument.

– Reference: Lehner, Mark, Thames & Hudson, 1997.

---

6.4. Djedefre’s Expulsion and Solar Theology Conflict

10. Rainer Stadelmann – Studies on Djedefre’s Abandonment of Giza

– Argues Djedefre’s move to Abu Rawash reflects theological deviation.

– Suggests rejection by central priesthood due to unorthodox solar syncretism.

– Reference: Stadelmann, Rainer, Die ägyptischen Pyramiden, Mainz: von Zabern, 1991.

11. Sally-Ann Ashton – Djedefre: The Forgotten Pharaoh

– Posits Djedefre as radical reformer of divine kingship doctrine.

– Reference: Ashton, Sally-Ann, Cambridge Egyptology Series, 2004.

---

6.5. Haitian Syncretism and Pharaonic Echoes

12. Jean Price-Mars – Ainsi parla l’oncle

– First major work linking Haitian Vodou to African and ancient cosmologies.

– Notes continuity in funerary rites and ancestor cults.

– Reference: Price-Mars, Imprimerie de l’Etat, 1928.

13. Jacques Roumain – Writings and Letters (Unpublished)

– Discusses the “broken priesthood” of the Haitian peasantry as a relic of African cosmology.

– Identifies Gede cult as inverted form of Osirian mysteries.

– Reference: Archives Nationales d’Haïti, Fonds Jacques Roumain.

14. Maya Deren – Divine Horsemen: The Living Gods of Haiti

– Describes Gede and Loa with strong Egyptian parallels: possession, ritual geometry, role of blood, color symbology.

– Reference: Deren, Maya, Thames & Hudson, 1953.

---

6.6. Theological Refraction and Inversion

15. Mircea Eliade – Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy

– Analyzes what occurs when high priestly rites are divorced from temple systems.

– Notes how cosmic structure breaks down into “pragmatic spirit-work” and sorcery.

– Reference: Eliade, Mircea, Princeton University Press, 1964.

16. Albert Churchward – The Origin and Evolution of Religion

– Connects pre-dynastic Egyptian religion to migratory African priesthoods.

– Posits displacement as key driver of spiritual inversion.

– Reference: Churchward, Albert, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1924.

---

6.7. Modern Canonical Reclaiming: Xaragua as Continuation

17. Documents of the Sovereign Catholic Indigenous Private State of Xaragua (SCIPS-X)

– Proclaims restoration of canonical sovereignty as response to fragmentation of Kemetian order.

– Uses Rome as the new solar axis, aligning with Apostolic succession as successor to Pharaonic kingship.

– Reference: Official Decrees, Xaraguauniversity.com

18. Canons of the Roman Catholic Church, Book II, Title III (Canon 368–430)

– Defines the ecclesiastical structure for sovereign religious governance.

– Serves as juridical framework for spiritual reconstruction.

– Reference: Codex Iuris Canonici, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1983.

---

6.8. Summary Convergence

This corpus demonstrates that:

The Egyptian system was foundational, structured, and sacred.

The expulsions (like Djedefre’s) led to powerful but disordered diasporas.

The Guédé cult and Haitian cosmology retain the mythic DNA of Kemet, albeit inverted and fragmented.

Only a canonical, juridical, and priestly re-ordering, such as SCIPS-X, can restore the original matrix.

Thus, the Afro-Atlantic world is not a deviation from Egypt — it is Egypt’s scattered soul.

---

CHAPTER VII — THE DESCENDANTS OF THE FALLEN: EXILED PHARAONIC LINEAGES, ARABIAN ALLIANCES, AND THE GENESIS OF THE TRANS-SAHARAN SLAVE COMPLEX

7.1. The Dispersal of Pharaonic Lineages After Dynastic Collapse

Following the political, spiritual, and territorial collapse of the Pharaonic theocracy—particularly after the Old and Middle Kingdom transitions—several displaced elite lineages were absorbed into marginalized Nubian and desert tribes, migrating southward along the Nile. Archaeological and genetic evidence attests to significant Sudanic migration from the Theban region after the Second Intermediate Period (c. 1782–1570 BCE) and again after the Assyrian and Persian invasions.

As Bruce Williams notes in "The Lost Pharaohs of Nubia", "the upper Nile became a repository of priestly and dynastic refugees" (Williams, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 1986). Many of these migrants brought solar rites, funerary practices, and linguistic structures that persisted in the Napatan and Meroitic kingdoms.

> "The Meroitic script bears both Egyptian and southern Cushitic influences, suggesting a hybrid priestly caste that had been expelled or marginalized in the north" (Török, The Kingdom of Kush, Brill, 1997, p. 93).

7.2. The Founding of Napata and Meroë as Exilic Theocracies

The Kingdom of Napata (c. 800 BCE) and later Meroë (c. 300 BCE – 350 CE) were not simply African polities but theocratic reconstructions. The very temple of Amun at Gebel Barkal in Nubia mirrors the Karnak complex in Thebes, indicating spiritual succession.

> "Napatan kings styled themselves 'Sons of Amun' and wore the double crown of Upper and Lower Egypt, without controlling either" (Morkot, The Black Pharaohs, Rubicon, 2000, p. 56).

This demonstrates an attempt to ritually re-establish Kemet outside its physical borders. But this restoration was fragile. Internal conflicts, external raids, and increasing desertification pushed many of these exiled elites further east and south, where they would encounter and eventually hybridize with proto-Arabic desert tribes.

---

7.3. Contact with Proto-Arab Tribes: Fusion and Reorientation

From the 3rd century BCE to the 6th century CE, the former Pharaonic lineages—already hybridized through Napatan and Meroitic intermarriages—entered deeper contact with the pre-Islamic Arab tribes of the desert corridor stretching from Upper Egypt to Yemen and the Horn of Africa.

Linguistic and genetic studies confirm extensive Cushitic-Semitic admixture during this period (Keita, S.O.Y., "Studies of ancient crania from northern Africa", American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 1990).

These new Afro-Arabic groups began reinterpreting their historical trauma—the fall of their Kemetian order—as a myth of betrayal, in which the interior African populations had either:

rejected their rule, or

descended into spiritual degradation (from the point of view of the priestly castes).

This paved the way for a radical reversal: the sons of the sun temples, now mixed and militarized, would turn against the African interior—not out of mere economics, but as ritual vengeance and symbolic cleansing.

> "The emergence of Arabized African slave-raiding groups in Darfur, Kordofan, and Chad corresponds precisely with the collapse of Meroë and the rise of hybrid camel-based nomadism... these were not purely Arab raiders, but métis groups bearing Meroitic and Egyptian priestly ancestry" (Lovejoy, Paul E., Transformations in Slavery, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 76).

---

7.4. The Vengeance Doctrine: Selling Africans and Europeans as Ritual Reversal

The establishment of trans-Saharan slave routes by the 7th century CE coincided with both:

the rise of Islam, which absorbed these desert castes, and

the institutionalization of slave economies linking Ghana, Kanem-Bornu, and Darfur to North Africa and Arabia.

Many of the Arab-led slave networks in Mali, Niger, Chad, and Sudan were in fact controlled by clans of mixed ancestry, whose oral traditions still reference ancient royal origins.

> "The Zaghawa and Toubou clans of the Sahel recount origin myths tracing their forefathers to 'the Nile kings who fled north', and their raids are often justified as acts of sacred dominance over 'blacker' populations" (Gaudio, Attilio, Les Royaumes Sahariens, Payot, 1970).

Furthermore, the enslavement of white Christian Europeans—particularly under the Barbary states—was not just opportunistic but ritually significant for these groups. The revenge was twofold:

1. Against black Africans who had “abandoned the priesthood,” and

2. Against white invaders who had profaned the Nile temples.

This is why some trans-Saharan clans, especially those involved in both Mediterranean piracy and African raids, adopted dualist eschatologies, where slavery became a spiritual weapon.

> "The ideology of some desert nomads aligns slavery with cosmological purification, much as fallen angels punish the impure" (Hunwick, J.O., Timbuktu and the Songhai Empire, Brill, 2003).

---

7.5. Continuity in Voodoo, Gédé, and Haitian Memory

This traumatic inversion—the spiritual elite turned slaver—left deep echoes in Afro-Caribbean cosmologies.

The Gédé cult in Haiti, particularly, reveals a ritual structure almost identical to the Osirian mysteries, but inverted: death leads not to resurrection but to permanent chaos, sex and laughter replace sacred silence, and power comes through ridicule.

> "Papa Gédé, with his top hat and dark humor, is an anti-Osiris. But the structure is still there: guardians of the dead, intermediaries with the divine, rituals of blood and retribution" (Deren, Maya, Divine Horsemen, 1953, p. 221).

This inversion testifies that the original rites were not destroyed, only distorted—as a folk response to elite betrayal and mass trauma. The former priests became slavers; the people mocked them through the Gédé.

> "The Vodou priest is the peasant version of the Pharaonic priest... inverted, vulgarized, but still hierophantic" (Price-Mars, Ainsi parla l’oncle, 1928, p. 146).