AHC: Save the Brazilian Empire

[John Fredrick Parker]

(second attempt)

What is the latest PoD that allows the Brazilian Imperial government to survive at least until, say, 1921?

Ideally, I'd like the PoD to be after the Rio Branco law in 1871. Bonus points if you can do this and end slavery in Brazil earlier than OTL.

I am actually aware of one TL that does this -- The Discord that Follows -- but it's a lot more than what I'm looking for...

EDIT CLARIFICATION: Yes, this is a second attempt at this thread; I'm doing this in response to comments in the original to the effect that the acronym in the title was off-putting to responses...

[maverick]

Jesus, what are you, five? Learn how to wait for people to respond.

Not trying to be insulting, just saying that the other thread has been up for less than 5 hours.

But since you've asked nicely, here's less ranting and a more serious response:

Pedro II was popular and powerful enough in 1889, so have his son Alfonso survive the illness that killed him at age 2 in 1847, so instead of caving in and abdicating, Pedro II deals with the revolution that deposed him IOTL in 1889 and then give the throne to his son, who'd be 42 in 1889.

Of course, there's also the chance that Pedro would have abdicated earlier, perhaps in the early 1880s, had he had Alfonso as an heir.

Alternatively, Francisco Solano Lopez does not become President of Paraguay in 1862; his brother (Benigno, I think) becomes President instead; ergo, no War of the Triple Alliance and no massive debts and economic ruin for the Empire of Brazil.

[Gonzaga]

Originally Posted by maverick

Pedro II was popular and powerful enough in 1889, so have his son Alfonso survive the illness that killed him at age 2 in 1847, so instead of caving in and abdicating, Pedro II deals with the revolution that deposed him IOTL in 1889 and then give the throne to his son, who'd be 42 in 1889.

Of course, there's also the chance that Pedro would have abdicated earlier, perhaps in the early 1880s, had he had Alfonso as an heir.

Agreed. A male heir wouldn't have all the problems that Isabel and her French consort had IOTL to be accepted. Even if no son of Pedro II survives you could still have Isabel dieing childless and her nephew Pedro Augusto de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança becoming the heir (sorry, I couldn't find any information in English about him: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_A...rgo_y_Braganza). He was like the Prince William of Imperial Brazil: handsome, well-liked by almost everybody and supported by many in order to be the new Emperor instead of his aunt.

However, even a male heir would have problems due to this:

Originally Posted by maverick

Alternatively, Francisco Solano Lopez does not become President of Paraguay in 1862; his brother (Benigno, I think) becomes President instead; ergo, no War of the Triple Alliance and no massive debts and economic ruin for the Empire of Brazil.

My thoughts exactly. The Paraguay War was the original source of the worst problems that the monarchy needed to face in the 1880's: economical debt, involvement of the Army in politics, growth of Republicanism... Avoid the conflict and you can have the Empire surviving at least until the early 20th century.

[maverick]

Originally Posted by Gonzaga

Agreed. A male heir wouldn't have all the problems that Isabel and her French consort had IOTL to be accepted. Even if no son of Pedro II survives you could still have Isabel dieing childless and her nephew Pedro Augusto de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança becoming the heir (sorry, I couldn't find any information in English about him: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_A...rgo_y_Braganza). He was like the Prince William of Imperial Brazil: handsome, well-liked by almost everybody and supported by many in order to be the new Emperor instead of his aunt.

Interesting Man. I think I have found my Pedro III


(for my Paraguay TL)

[Gonzaga]

Originally Posted by maverick

Interesting Man. I think I have found my Pedro III


(for my Paraguay TL)

Glad to help!
If you need more information about him for just ask me, I've bought a good biography of Pedro Augusto some months ago, and he had indeed a pretty interesting (but tragic) life.

[John Fredrick Parker]

First, thank you for your responses I really liked this answer:

Even if no son of Pedro II survives you could still have Isabel dieing childless and her nephew Pedro Augusto de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança becoming the heir (sorry, I couldn't find any information in English about him: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_A...rgo_y_Braganza). He was like the Prince William of Imperial Brazil: handsome, well-liked by almost everybody and supported by many in order to be the new Emperor instead of his aunt.

Now, I know respondents thus far can't see the Imperial Government surviving long after the War of the Triple Alliance, but here's a what if: Supposing Isabel dies a couple of years after her sister, without a son; does anything change in Brazil once Pedro III begins grooming to be his grandfather's successor?

[maverick]

Originally Posted by Gonzaga

Glad to help!
If you need more information about him for just ask me, I've bought a good biography of Pedro Augusto some months ago, and he had indeed a pretty interesting (but tragic) life.

Will do.

Now, I know respondents thus far can't see the Imperial Government surviving long after the War of the Triple Alliance, but here's a what if: Supposing Isabel dies a couple of years after her sister, without a son; does anything change in Brazil once Pedro III begins grooming to be his grandfather's successor?

Yes, but there's still the effects of the post-war to be dealt with.

Slavery, growing republicanism, the never-ending economic crisis.

I still think that an energic response to the 1889 revolution should be enough to stop it, though.

[Lord Grattan]

Originally Posted by Gonzaga

Agreed. A male heir wouldn't have all the problems that Isabel and her French consort had IOTL to be accepted. Even if no son of Pedro II survives you could still have Isabel dieing childless and her nephew Pedro Augusto de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança becoming the heir (sorry, I couldn't find any information in English about him: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedro_A...rgo_y_Braganza). He was like the Prince William of Imperial Brazil: handsome, well-liked by almost everybody and supported by many in order to be the new Emperor instead of his aunt.

However, even a male heir would have problems due to this:


My thoughts exactly. The Paraguay War was the original source of the worst problems that the monarchy needed to face in the 1880's: economical debt, involvement of the Army in politics, growth of Republicanism... Avoid the conflict and you can have the Empire surviving at least until the early 20th century.

He (his "my time-line replicant" actually) will make an excellent Pedro III for Brazil in my Course of Human Events TL. Thanks.

[Gonzaga]

Originally Posted by maverick

I still think that an energic response to the 1889 revolution should be enough to stop it, though.

The problem is: would it work? There wasn't much the government could do to stop the coup if the officers in the Army simply refused to obbey orders from the civilians because they would be forced to kill their fellow brothers in arms. When put against the rebells, all the military forces sent by the government simply joined them or refused to fight.

[maverick]

Originally Posted by Gonzaga

The problem is: would it work? There wasn't much the government could do to stop the coup if the officers in the Army simply refused to obbey orders from the civilians because they would be forced to kill their fellow brothers in arms. When put against the rebells, all the military forces sent by the government simply joined them or refused to fight.

Hmmm..a very good point. Something more than the figures of Pedro II and the new heir could be needed.

Perhaps is Slavery was not abolished in the late 1880s or if it was done more gradually? No, that'd be even less realistic, right?

[Gonzaga]

Originally Posted by maverick

Perhaps is Slavery was not abolished in the late 1880s or if it was done more gradually? No, that'd be even less realistic, right?

The problem with the end of slavery again falls in the effects of the war. For the government, the so called "Law of the Free Womb" of 1871 had already solved the question. All the slaves born after that year would live with their masters until they reached the age of 8. Then, or the master would receive an indenization from the government and set free the slave, or he would keep him until he is 21, with these extra years of work being counted as indenization. With this solution, everybody expected a safe and gradual end for slavery, even if it meant that there would still be slaves well into the early 20th century.

However, the abolitionist campaign got strenght after that, especially in the early 1880's, by pressure of the Army, the Church and the Republican and those who defended the "whitening" of Brazil by bringing European immigrants. When the provinces of Ceará, Amazonas and several municipalities of Rio Grande do Sul decided to abolish slavery in 1884, without waiting for the central government decision, it created a dangerous precedent. Other influence was the fact that the coffee planters of West São Paulo (the region to where the plantatiosn were suffering the greatest expansion) soon realised that bringing immigrants to work was more profitable than keeping slaves (that were becoming increasingly expensive by that time, 30 years after the end the Transatlantic slave traffic). Only the traditional and declining coffee plantation areas of Rio de Janeiro and Paraíba Valley (Northeast São Paulo and Southwest Rio de Janeiro) kept their attachment to slavery.
Then the Parliament was forced to vote the Sexagenaries Law in 1885, that stated that all slaves above 60 should be freed. But again, in order to have it passed, they included an article that stated that all these sexagenaries should work five more years as indenization to their masters.

That's the word that was he real trouble involving the abolition: indenization. Most of the farmers by the 1870's and 1880's knew that slavery would cease to exist. The problem is that they wanted to receive indenization for the loss of their "property" and some kind of economical help to adapt their production to a "wage system". But the government couldn't offer this economical incentive, due to the crisis in the public finnances cause by the war between 1864-1870. And the farmers knew it. Remember the law of the Free Womb? Well, from all slaves born after 1871, only 118 were "bought" by the government to be freed before they reached 21, partly because the farmers wanted to keep their manpower, but also because the government couldn't afford to pay for them.

So, I think the end of slavery could have been delayed, but not that much. Many other political reforms were being planned at the end of the reign of Pedro II exactly in order to counter the growth of Republican sympathies, and if it hadn't been abolished in 1888 it probably wouldn't last more than five years.

[SilverSwimmer]

thanks for the advertisement JFP

[John Fredrick Parker]

Originally Posted by Gonzaga

That's the word that was he real trouble involving the abolition: indenization. Most of the farmers by the 1870's and 1880's knew that slavery would cease to exist. The problem is that they wanted to receive indenization for the loss of their "property" and some kind of economical help to adapt their production to a "wage system". But the government couldn't offer this economical incentive, due to the crisis in the public finnances cause by the war between 1864-1870.

OK, I'm still hinkering to see if this can work with a post 1871 PoD, so let me ask -- is it plausible that Brazil could have put itself on surer financial footing in the 1870's and 1880's to allow for them to better handle this transition?

Originally Posted by SilverSwimmer

thanks for the advertisement JFP

No prob -- I wanted to give you props for having a TL that achieved this (though again, it's alot more than what I was looking for)

Oh, and thanks to maverick -and Gonzaga again for the responses...

[John Fredrick Parker]

Wondering about something different now -- with a PoD no earlier than 1871, how early could slavery and the imperial government have ended? (Or should that be a different thread?)

[maverick]

I'm sure Gonzaga can answer, but my gut tells me that no earlier than the 1880s.

[Max Sinister]

So - when Maria freed the slaves, what happened then? I guess the slave owners didn't get indenization?

[Gonzaga]

Originally Posted by John Fredrick Parker

OK, I'm still hinkering to see if this can work with a post 1871 PoD, so let me ask -- is it plausible that Brazil could have put itself on surer financial footing in the 1870's and 1880's to allow for them to better handle this transition?

I think it's very difficult. The debt created by the war was so huge that combined with global crises of the late 19th century created economical problems that were still unsolved by the early 20th century. I don't have the numbers now, but I've recently bought a book about Brazilian economical history that shows how bad was the situation at the time, I'll post some figures here when I come home.

Originally Posted by John Fredrick Parker

Wondering about something different now -- with a PoD no earlier than 1871, how early could slavery and the imperial government have ended? (Or should that be a different thread?)

Originally Posted by maverick

I'm sure Gonzaga can answer, but my gut tells me that no earlier than the 1880s.

Well, one of the main problems of the monarchy was the succession: almost no one wanted Isabel and her French husband becoming the rulers. And Pedro II was still respected in the political scene. Well, sort of, as by the 1880's he was being ridiculed in the press as he got the tendency of sleep during reunions (he got diabetes, and one of the consequences was sonolence). But the destruction of the public image of the heirs took some time to happen. If Pedro II had died in the 1870's probably Isabel could have save her throne. In the 1880's, an earlier death of the Emperor would mean the end of the Empire.

Originally Posted by Max Sinister

So - when Maria freed the slaves, what happened then? I guess the slave owners didn't get indenization?

Exactly. The fact they didn't receive nothing for freeing their slaves pushed them to Republicanism (they were even called at the time as the "Republicans of May 14th", as the Abolition was declared in May 13th 1888).

[John Fredrick Parker]

Originally Posted by Gonzaga

<snip>

Thank you so much for this -- I think I've really got a sense for Brazil's possibilities and realities during this period now

[Guilherme Loureiro]

Originally Posted by maverick

Pedro II was popular and powerful enough in 1889, so have his son Alfonso survive the illness that killed him at age 2 in 1847, so instead of caving in and abdicating, Pedro II deals with the revolution that deposed him IOTL in 1889 and then give the throne to his son, who'd be 42 in 1889.

If his son Afonso(or his second son, whose name escapes me now) survives, would D.Pedro II even be ruling in 1889? I think he would have stepped down in the late 70's or early 80's.

[DrakeRlugia]

Pedro II didn't wish to abdicate the throne, he felt he had to reign until he died, much like Elizabeth II today. I think the huge problem is even Pedro II had reservations about his daughter becoming Empress: he was apathetic against moving against the growing positivism movement within the army and when the coup did occur in 1889 that overthrew him, he simply accepted it. Although Pedro was quite intelligent, he believed that Brazil needed a male heir, not an Empress, and although Isabel was certainly intelligent, he really had no desire for her to succeed him. A male heir would certainly keep the empire, I think: I believe by the 1880s Pedro II had largely accepted that a republic would succeed him, given he was generally apathetic about the growing republican movement. Wasn't the 1889 coup brought about because the Republicans felt they were 'running out of time' so to speak?