From Revolution to Recognition

• In Event: Domestic and International Responses to Revolutionary Regime Change

Abstract

A growing body of research suggests that ideological cleavages matter for understanding patterns of international conflict. However, we still lack clear evidence that the observed relationship is causal and of the mechanisms responsible for these patterns. To address this gap, I develop a qualitative case design that draws on the differences-and-differences framework from the causal inference literature and use it to study British and U.S. reactions to Haitian independence. Before Great Britain outlawed slavery in its colonies, both it and the United States refused to recognize Haiti diplomatically and indicated their opposition to a government born of a slave rebellion. Yet, after outlawing slavery, British and U.S. foreign policy quickly diverged. Britain ended its regime dispute with Haiti by bestowing diplomatic recognition, while the United States continued its policies of diplomatic isolation. Because other measures of these states’ material interests did not change at the same time in a way that can account for the observed policy divergence, this case strongly suggests that the British and U.S. ideological stance on slavery was the primary source of their disputes with the Haitian regime. Moreover, process-tracing reveals that hostilities prior to British and U.S. emancipation were caused by fears that Haitian leaders would promote or otherwise inspire the spread of slave rebellions throughout the Caribbean and U.S. South. Overall then, this research both advances our understanding of the effects of ideological cleavages on international conflict and introduces a new case design to improve researchers’ ability to assess causality qualitatively.

Author

• Lindsay Hundley, Stanford University