Oh really? Allow me to refresh your selective memory:

1801: Toussaint L'Ouveture, after being backed up by the Spaniards, double crosses them and later invades Santo Domingo. Why? What did they do to deserve that?

1805: Dessalines invades Santo Domingo. Haiti, without putting anytype of effort into making an alliance with the colony of Santo Domingo wants to go ahead and write into their constitution that the two sections of the island are one in the same. The colonist of Santo Domingo wanted nothing to do with the French, why did Haitians behave in such an imperialistic matter?

1821: Santo Domingo declares it's independence from Spain and tries to incorporate itself into Simon Bolivars' La Gran Colombia. At that time many of LatinAmerican colonies were obtaining their independence. But wait, before the infant republic could even get off to its feet:

1822 Jean Pierre Boyer invades and occupies the eastern side of the island (Dominican Republic).

1822 to 1844: We are occupied by Haitian forces. During this occupation DR's Hispanic culture was being destroyed by Boyer. There are too many examples, starting with the fact that Haitians looked down upon Hispanic culture/language as being inferior to the French.

1844: We finally throw off the Haitian yoke.

1849: Faustin Soulouque invades DR. Why? Are we not an independent sovereign nation? What did we do to deserve an invasion?

1850: Faustin Soulouque again.

And right before the annexation by Spain, Haiti was preparing for another invasion but internal strife made them pull back.

Now I've seen countless Haitian posters want to downplay/deny/candycoat these events with all sorts of creative twist/spinning of isolated facts you cherry pick to your convenience.
Do Haitian history books tell it like it is?

And the tired old formula of trying to stereotype Dominicans as blind followere of Trujillos ideology and Balaguers. You overestimate how much of this is soaked up by the average citizen in the general public.
I went to school in DR and nowhere in any of the books I studies is there any biased account of Haiti.

Oh man!!!!!!! First of all that first event you are alluding to did not happen in 1801. Go back and study your notes a little harder okay. Second thing is that the Haitians were right in their "double-cross" of the spaniards. If you think the Spaniards were really looking for the interest of their new friends, the Haitians, then you are niave

The Spaniards weren´t really looking for that, but then, I think that the Haitian cause would have been better served had Toussaint stayed with the Spaniards. Why? because of the fact that the Spaniards had a state of "laissez faire" regarding the conditions of the "slaves" on the Spanish colony. In which consisted this laissez faire? simple, being that the economic regime of the Spanish colony was that of cattle ranching, the slaves were simply peasants attending the cattle in the respective haciendas, a regime which allowed them an inmense degree of liberty, so much so that they were allowed to exchange their place of work when discontent with their current conditions, and were even paid for their work. In short, I think that Toussaint made a mistake by switching sides, because the Spaniards didn't have the intention of adopting the plantation system prevailing on french Saint Domingue (in fact, they would only implement this sugar plantation system on Cuba and Puerto Rico only by the second half of the XIX century, and the Spaniard system would lack the senseless brutality that characterized the plantation system prevailing on the French, English and Dutch colonies). This mistake is made all the more poignant when you look at the fate of Toussaint's comrades in arms, Jean Francois Papillon and Georges Biassou, which stayed with the Spaniards, and would die receiving all the military honors gained by their feats of arms (Jean Francois would even go as far as attending the Spanish Court on a couple of occasions), while Toussaint would die in disgrace on a cold french prison, betrayed not only by his french superiors, but also by his comrades in arms, when they saw that he was a liability to their plans (I'm talking about the noirist party, which had at first Hyacinthe Moyse, Toussaint's nephew, as their leader, and, after Moyse's execution, would have Dessalines at their helm), because they wished to break with the french, while Toussaint only wanted this break up after his country was sufficiently prepared to withstand the onslaught that such decision would entail.

I emphatically disagree with you last post Lautaro. I find myself scratching my head when you stated that the Spaniards had a policy of "Laissez-Faire" in regards to slavery. These were the same Spaniards that arguably committed to the most crimes against humanity. They destroyed the Aztec's ancient city in Mexico, committed genocide against the Incas,Mayans, Carribes, Tiano. They kidnapped, enslaved, raped, and broke families apart. They stoled resources and claimed land that were not even theres. The Spanish crown is at the top of the list of nations/people who committed the most humanitarian crimes. The reason why Toussaint betrayed them was to pit them against the French and British and also because he knew they were not going to outlaw slavery.

I was talking about the specific case of the island of Hispaniola, souviens. Toussaint's flaw was that he gave way too much weight to things that were on paper, not understanding that for men, even on that era, Constitutions were only pieces of paper to be discarded when they became liabilities to their ambitions, as it would happen in the case of his beloved French, which would establish the cherished abolition on paper, but would discard it when they discovered that to be a hindrance to their filling up their pockets. In that sense, there are positive proofs that Spain never intended to apply the plantation system of the french if they had the fortune of reconquering the island in its entirety. Why? because the Spanish colonial system never based itself on the capitalist principle of patient building of fortunes (a principle that their Catholic orthodoxy pointed as sinful), just on plain sack and pillage of lands with existing stockpiles of strong metals (gold, silver, etc.) and the expansion of the Catholic faith, which would explain why you'll find that the economic system of the sugar plantation would never be successful with them when they first tried to apply it on this island on the XVI century. My laissez faire refers to the fact that the slave on the Spanish side, once the Spanish sugar industry on this island collapsed and the cattle ranching system was established on its place during the XVII century, would never suffer the whip again, and, what is more astounding, would live in the same conditions as their "masters", attending the cattle and practicing subsistence agriculture, given the absolute poverty that would characterize that colony from that time onwards, and that the Spanish would never be able to replicate the plantation system of the french, due to the fact that they lacked the resources to build the mills and the capitalist, bourgeois class that would task itself with buying the necessary workforce/slaves to keep the system running (as well as reaping the profits from that system), which would in turn explain why on Spanish Santo Domingo the colonial authorities would take special interest in the well being of the existing "slave" population (if they could be called such, given the economic system existing there), and which wasn't that considerable (the slave population of the Spanish colony only amounted to 3,000 out of a population of 140,000 souls). Had I been on Toussaint's shoes, I would have seen the fact that, although the Spanish would never have considered establishing the abolition on paper, the economic reality of the island under Spanish dominion would have made the "de facto" freedom of his people at least a practical, enduring reality, and one that the Spanish would have left unaltered, due to the fact of their seeing this island only as a military outpost from which to defend the routes to their sacred gold vaults of Mexico and Peru, and their silver mines at Potosí (the current Bolivia). Plus, it shouldn't have been a secret for him the fact that it was easier for an African to obtain his/her freedom on the Spanish dominions than it would ever have been on the English, French, Dutch and Portuguese ones, which would explain by itself why the slave population never surpassed the free one in numbers on Spanish America.

I'm sorry to tell you this, but you're committing the same mistake that Toussaint and other Haitian rulers did when analyzing the Spanish part: they analyzed it with the same lens with which they saw their own homeland, when in fact the two colonies represented two different realities altogether: The one of the rich plantation on one side (French Saint Domingue), where the social and economic conditions between masters and slaves were so different and absolutely unequal as to make a social conflict inevitable, and on the other hand the one of the poor, miserable cattle ground (Spanish Santo Domingo), where masters and slaves, if not equal on social terms, at least were so on economic grounds, so much so that the conditions for a social war would shine for their nonexistence, a situation that guaranteed that intelectuals Juan Bosch would come to establish the fact that Santo Domingo has yet to experience serious social strife. In fact, the Spanish system on Hispaniola was so mild that you'll find that, even on that era, the first objective of the slaves of the french part would be to reach this side of the fence when running away from the plantations (San Lorenzo de Los Minas, a village on the outskirts of Santo Domingo city, was a village specifically created by the Spanish crown to give asylum to those runaway slaves). That's why you'll find the fact that, once Toussaint abolished "slavery" from the Constitution of this part of the island, he would not receive the automatic allegiance of the newly liberated group, but on the contrary, would find that they opposed him as much as the next Spaniard or mixed person, and that the population of this side as a whole (including the recently liberated "slaves" ) would be the first to give their allegiance to the french expedition sent to crush him and the rebellion.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab41
HISTORY OF HAITI
In 1801 he invades Santo Domingo and achieves control over the entire island.

http://www.allempires.com/article/index.php?q=conflict_haiti_dominican
In 1801, after taking control of St. Domingue in the Haitian Revolution, Toussaint invaded Santo Domingo t

1) Every source I've ever read states 1801 as the year
2) Please provide us with a source that says otherwise
3) It's actually irrelevant if the year is incorrect, does not change the fact that a one American colony invaded another.

As for the rest of your post, I believe it has been answered with the utmost detail by Lautaro.
I cannot help to note you really didn't have much to say on the matter.

Excellent post Lautaro! So many details to comment, but I'll just add one thing:
I find that alot of Haitians make the mistake of viewing the Spanish side of the island (Santo Domingo) as sort of a Spanish version of Haiti. The schism of race/color/class were no where near to what occured in Haiti, and this was due to many factors, especially the cattle based economy.
Too many Haitians think that a black Dominican of that time would have been a carbon copy of a black Haitian and so forth. Simplistic, naive, and 100% incorrect.
It is my opinion that DR did not have racially motivated massacres because of this. Sure, we've had our problems like the rest of the newly independent nations of the Americas but I don't think it reached the level of say Haiti or even Cuba.
The slaves on DR were practically ranch hands with the owner being practically as poor as his slave. Not saying slavery in any form is good, just explaining how the different systems made the 2 societies evolve differently.

I think that souviens is referring to the fact that Toussaint's "betrayal" would come to pass on the year 1794, after the french jacobins baited him with their abolition of slavery on their Constitution on that year, USADR. But, as I posted earlier, this "volte facce" availed him only an ignominious end on a cold prison on the hands of his newfound allies, and a country that, even though having won the battle for independence, is losing badly the war to maintain it, as Mr. TexasBill once said. Although I have to say in their favour that their enemies (both national and foreign) will have to give one heck of a fight before the task of subduing them is completed, if ever. Their ironclad will to carry on the fight is something to be respected.

The fact that the DR had two black presidents (Gregorio Luperon and Ulisses Heureaux), on an era in which some countries of Latin America still were under the yoke of slavery (specifically Cuba, Puerto Rico and Brazil), should speak volumes about the levels of racial democracy that our country have had historically, USADR.

Thank you Lautaro. Thats exactly to what I was alluding to USDR. It was not the date of the invasion of Santo Domingo. Like I said before the Haitians were right in what they did to the Spaniards.