executive as the true representative of national interests. In L’Union are numerous entries which
accuse Boyer of ignoring legislative decisions, revising judiciary decisions, and publishing false
reports of government actions. Hérard Dumesle, whose speeches and letters are published by
L’Union, was a mulatto poet, orator, and statesman who led the charges that Boyer’s actions
were increasingly autocratic. Dumesle, after being dismissed by Boyer as a representative in the
Chambre des représentants went on to organize the Société des droits de l’homme et du citoyen,
the goals of which were to set up a new provisional government. This organization was
successful in inciting insurrection against Boyer who fled Haiti in 1842.
This twenty-year period of relative stability and formal recognition from France allowedfor a fuller concept of nation. On a most basic level, the 1830s is the first decade to be without
the competing Haitian territories and governments, so that literature could be written against the
backdrop of a more outwardly unified political landscape. At the same time, however, many of
Boyer’s policies prompted protest in the name of national interests. On the whole, not only have
previous literary studies not accounted adequately for Haiti’s historical circumstances during this
period, but the sweeping and sometimes dismissive labels of Romantic and Indigéniste have not
really reflected close readings of the poetic texts themselves.
Haiti’s 2004 bicentennial prompted multiple reconsiderations of the Haitian Revolutionon historical, political, literary and philosophical levels. Before coming to the actual poems, it
will be useful to review two articles which will assist in better framing what Ardouin’s and
Nau’s poems, especially those about the Haitian Revolution, can bring to the current field of
Haitian studies. Susan Buck-Morss’s critical essay “Hegel and Haiti,” for example, has inspired
a reconsideration of Haiti’s role not only in world history but also in the history of Western