|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
hmm... But I would think that unless the *Uruguayans are pacified and Brazilianized fast, their sheer nature as "Hispanics under Brazilian control" would suffice to feed the irredentist spirit in *Argentina for years...
|
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Actually, the imperial foreign policy was to guarantee the free navigation of the rivers of the La Plata Basin in order to reach the western and godforsaken province of Mato Grosso. Cisplatine was essential for this and the Brazilian interventions in 1850, 1854 and 1864 were to keep the status quo.
|
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
And, even if a victory in a second war is achieved, that means opening a second seafaring province which would compete with Buenos Aires and a business elite which will compete with the Buenos Aires' elite. But, then again, a second war down the line might be possible. And there is the issue if the Brazilians can hold the Cisplatine Province anyway. Gonzaga is right about Brazilian finances. The thing is, Argentine finances were bad as well. I don't think either country can press the land war further.
__________________
Argentina isoted to Westeros. Chapter 24: The mockingbird and the oaf Quote:
|
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Brazil's first aim in that war was to keep the Cisplatine as a province, and Pedro I personally considered it Brazilian territory. Also, Brazil lost all the important land battles in the conflict. I can't see how can it be considered a Brazilian victory.
__________________
Because we all love mad kings: Madness and Greatness: a history of Portugal (1578 - 1640) Last update: 21/September/2010 |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Because we all love mad kings: Madness and Greatness: a history of Portugal (1578 - 1640) Last update: 21/September/2010 |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Butterflies
While the Cisplatine War would seem a local squabble, its consequences would impact in rather unpredictable ways the life of one Giuseppe Garibaldi, that was later to play a large role as military leader in Italian Unification.
He would form his early military knowledge mostly in the Farrapos rebellion and later in the Uruguayan Civil war. Interesting stuff down the line here.
__________________
|
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
![]() |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
If anything undermined Pedro's authority, it was his a) very open affair with Domitila de Castro, b) the fact that he couldn't pay his troops; which led directly to the Irish and German' Revolt, and c) his very liberal personal and political policies; which had caused the Confederate revolt in the north-west just a year before the Cisplatine War. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
The problem of the war is that it showed how unprepared was the Brazilian Army, and many officers started to blame the Emperor for it (and he could actually be personally blamed, as the increase of authoritarism during his rule meant that government was dependent on him). The defeat also was a tool used by the opposition to make his government even more unpopular, as the Emperor had emptied the public coffers and sent soldiers to die for a lost cause. It wasn't a direct cause of his abdication, but it helped to undermine his position. Quote:
__________________
Because we all love mad kings: Madness and Greatness: a history of Portugal (1578 - 1640) Last update: 21/September/2010 |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
What? I think we're disagreeing here because we have a fundamental different understanding of the historical facts.
Sources; Roderick Barman's Brazil: The Forging of a Nation, 1798-1852, Neill Macaulay's Dom Pedro: The Struggle for Liberty in Brazil and Portugal, 1798–1834, The [Argentine] National Convention's Sesquicentennial Tribute to the Major Historical Events of 1825. |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
It was a liberal constitution in the terms of personal freedoms, but the Moderator Power allowed Pedro to rule as an absolute monarch of a very centralized state. This didn't please the North East, long neglected by the Brazilian government and with a history of uprisings.
|
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
They owned Uruguay before 1825. They didn't after 1828. Before it was Brazilian territory, they could do what they pleased. Afterwards it was an independent country where they might exert some influence, sure... but so could Argentina or Britain. And they had a government which defended their own interests. I don't see how you can call this an "undeniable victory". It might not be the worstcase scenario for Brazil, since at least it didn't end up in Argentine hands... But a victory???
|
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
See my reply above to Gonzaga. |
|
#38
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, I must say it wasn't considedered a victory in Argentina either, or, more precisely, the idea was that we won the war on the field but lost it on the peace treaty. That's how it was seen back then, and that's one of the reasons why Dorrego's government failed. This idea endured for a long time. My view is that the government wasn't in financial conditions to keep the war going, an the blockade was affecting the economy seriously. So it was a reasonable result for Argentina, given the situation the country was in, and the disparity of resources both country could have displayed in the long run, had the war went on. |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Quote:
The conflict was a direct consequence of the dissolution of the Constitutional Assembly by Pedro I in 1823. When the news of the dissolution arrived to Recife in November the political unrest increased, and in December the government of the province (composed by sugarcane landwoners) fell, being replaced by a "junta" of merchants and owners of cotton plantations. Their leader was Paes de Andrade, a liberal merchant veteran of 1817, who lived in exile in the USA after that rebellion was supressed (he even named his three dauthers as Carolina, Filadélfia and Pensilvania). The problem of Paes is that Pedro had named other guy to be the governor of Pernambuco (Francisco Paes Barreto, a sugarmill owner of the South of the province). The "junta" refused to replace Andrade by Barreto, and sent a letter to the Emperor asking to have the dissolution of the Constitutional Assembly cancelled and all the deputies called back to Rio, including those who were arrested and deported. Pedro I tried to reach an agreement by nominating other governor, but the man indicated refused to accept the position. Meanwhile, the government of Pernambuco spent the entire first half of 1824 preparing to war, even capturing ships of the imperial navy in the harbour of Recife. So yes, it was a revolt of wealthy landwoners and slaveholders, but the main supporters were the merchants of Recife, who had commercial relations with Britain. When Paes de Andrade suggested that they could free the slaves to get more manpower to fight the Imperial Army then they lost the support of the landwoners, who started to collaborate with the Empire. And yes, they were against the Constitution of 1824, but not because it was too Liberal, but because they didn't want to recognise a constitution that was imposed by the Emperor (and that gave him "authoritarian power") instead of one created by the representatives of the provinces. Sources: Carvalho, Carlos Delgado de - História Diplomática do Brasil Golin, Tau - A Fronteira Gomes, Laurentino - 1822 Del Priore, Mary - Uma Breve História do Brasil
__________________
Because we all love mad kings: Madness and Greatness: a history of Portugal (1578 - 1640) Last update: 21/September/2010 |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interesting replies! I'd like to quickly add some of my opinions to discuss it later:
1 - Most of the revolts in Brazil by that time, like the other big countries in America, e.g. Argentina, Mexico, USA, were not about Conservatism or Liberalism (I think that would be better suited to discuss European situation), but Political Centralism against more Regional Liberty ("Federalsm"). Issues about political Conservatism or Liberalism woud only be collateral dammage, in my opinion. 2 - As someone said before, Uruguay was far from being an uncontested Spanish/Argentinean territory. Portuguese Colônia do Sacramento was founded in the early 17th century and it changed hands from Portugal to Spain countless times ever since. It was far from being a foreign land to the Brazilian/Portuguese. 3 - As for the ethnical/linguistic problem, I don't think that would be a big issue either. The farmers from Rio Grande do Sul would most probably migrate searching more fertile lands in a Texas-like moviment. I'm sure that the Spanish "Platino" culture would not be totally supplanted, but, as I see, Brazilian Cisplatina would "just" be another unhappy Brazilian province. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|