The Irish were never chattel slaves; why then were Haitians able to form their nation, while Ireland was unable to expel an oppressive force? France was expelled from Saint Domingue in 1804; however, this alleged freedom has not brought prosperity to the majority of revolutionary descendants.

Ireland's relationship with revolution is infinitely more complex than that of Haiti, and the neighboring Dominican Republic, which won freedom from Haiti first in 1844. Dominican revolutionaries took advantage of Haitian turmoil to form the Dominican Republic. Indicating that no national boundary controversies are the same, the Irish border situation and that of Hispaniola radically diverge today.

While there are certainly commonalities between Haiti and Ireland regarding depth of subjugation by colonial power, importing African slaves from the same region is far different from the ebb and flow of a neighbor's influence. That diversity of reactions to a visitor, ranging from welcome, indifference, and scorn, dictate that expulsion of the guest, in the Irish case the English, would be far less likely.

Nationalists in Ireland can argue that the cause of unifying Ireland has amassed victories. However, the nationalist cause in Ireland has always advocated for all thirty-two counties of Ireland as one country ruled by one Dublin government, while Unionists claim right to a six county section in Ireland's northeast, referred to by all but nationalists as Northern Ireland. The nationalist struggle turned violent in Northern Ireland for decades in the late twentieth century. Therefore, peace has been an obstacle to both an absolute nationalist victory and the eradication of Irish Republicanism, a political view significantly linked to violence.

In the late seventeenth century, Irish Catholics may have looked to King James as a possible savior, freeing them from the Protestant reign of William of Orange. However, James viewed his efforts against Protestant forces in Ireland more as a vehicle through which to reacquire power. Less than a decade later, in 1697, Spain and France agreed to the Treaty of Ryswick (Demangles 19), dictating that two thirds of Hispañola would be Spanish, and the western third, Saint Domingue, would be French (Clement 148). War preceded treaty; cessation of hostilities attracted French settlers to colonize with their slaves. In a land where prized products such as sugar and coffee were plentiful, the free labor of chattel slaves toiling in the fields established Saint Domingue as a colonial jewel, to which French flocked. More than three centuries after the 1492 founding of the island colony, and a century after a treaty divided Hispañola into what today are two independent nations, slaves led a successful revolution.

Questions addressed will include:

• How did a desire for independence factor into the Haitian slave revolt and Irish nationalism?
• Specifically relating to the Irish, how did the European definition of race affect English views?
• Focusing primarily on the "Age of Revolution" and modern times, how did racial stereotypes affect how the world perceived Haiti?
• How did refugees from Haiti and Saint Domingue affect their neighbors and the world, both during the “Age of Revolutions†and today?
• To what extent did eugenics, deriving from racial stereotyping, continue to affect Haiti as the nation evolved?
• To what extent is the Haitian Revolution still taking place, as the nation today combats economic and social obstacles?
• To what extent does the massive drop in the Irish population resulting from hunger and emigration contribute to the current state of Irish society?
• How well are the legacies of Toussaint Louverture and Wolfe Tone reflected respectively in the advanced histories of Haiti and Ireland?

This project seeks to demonstrate, through two instances of divided islands, that oppressive hierarchy does not necessarily spur revolution; the nature and intricacy of the subjugation, planned or otherwise, is the primary factor determining whether the marginalized will attain power. Simultaneously, the comparison and contrast of the two island experiences will facilitate growth in studies on how certain sociological phenomena - nationalism and racial and religious discrimination -- affect emerging and transitioning states. The United States does factor into this analysis because Americans have had interest in what has occurred in Ireland, especially since massive emigration, and America is Haiti's neighbor to the North. Haiti has often been described as isolated from the United States. In some ways this has been so, but in other instances Haiti has been the focus of American policy.

Consequently, stemming from the age of revolutions, analysis and investigation will reveal that no one factor can guarantee removal of an oppressive force. Instead it is a compilation of sociopolitical events, as occurred in Haiti in 1804, converting previous governmental structures to the new, that forms fledgling nations. Even when a revolution removes an entrenched power structure, such is no guarantee that freedom and prosperity will be the result, even for leaders of the cause and their most ardent adherents. Degree of individual freedom experienced by victors and future citizen followers depends upon many factors which can be out of the revolutionaries' control.

This work attempts to ascertain why certain oppressed populations revolt successfully and others do not. Once begun, why do some revolutions succeed? How do goals of a revolution alter, once objectives appear to have been achieved? Focus on new nations and those transformed by internal revolution will add to critique on the significance of successful revolts. Therefore, this work's purpose will be to begin analyzing revolutionary process through the lens of two cases with basic commonalities, yet different results. Both islands can argue that there have been successes and failures regarding their quests for Irish and Haitian notions of freedom.