Brazilian empire lasting to today

How could the brazilian empire last to today with brazil in a slightly stronger position then IRL?
Actually, the empire was in a number of ways more progressist
than the succeeding "republic" was.
The life of Irineu Evangelista de Sousa, the "Barão de Mauá",
gives a good idea of how a much better Brazil could have
developed from the seeds sowed at the time of the empire.
A good start would be less dependence on slave workforce, what
would re-inforce the army, that would be able to draw on
a bigger free population. A stronger army might discourage
Lopez from attacking Brazil, and thus the Paraguay war
might be avoided ( or, at worst, won faster and with less cost).
 
Last edited:
How could the brazilian empire last to today with brazil in a slightly stronger position then IRL?

I'm not sure if the Empire could last to today, but a first step would be the War of the Tripple Alliance being avoided, as it would change completely the economical and political crisis that caused the fall of the monarchy. Also, it would be good if Pedro II has a male heir (doesn't even need to be his own son, could be one of his grandsons) avoinding the possibility of an Empress Isabel I.
 
Wiat, now here's a problem. Brazil went down due to slavery being abolished, yet if yiou don't abolish it, the world's powers get annoyed.
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Law

Slavery was abolished by Princess Isabel, regent for for her father Dom Pedro II, in 1888. One year later, there was a republican coup that abolished the monarchy.
Well, yeah, but the abolition of slavery was far from being the only cause of the fall of the monarchy. In fact, it is rather doubtful that it
was even the main cause. Have the slavery toned down from
what it was OTL back in the 1830's, and then the wars that had weakened the Crown OTL by the 1880's might not even happen - due to the eventual attackers being discouraged from attacking a militarily stronger army
(with a larger free population). Also, we would have an economically stronger Empire due to not incurring in the expenses of OTL wars. Thus doubly reinforced, the crown would shake off any retaliations from disgruntled landowners.
 
I can bet the slave trade was a huge amount of power for the Brazilian Empire. With I once read,that most slaved sent out of Africa went to Brazil. So a huge amount of the economy is gone right there,decent reason to depose the monarchy.
 
I can bet the slave trade was a huge amount of power for the Brazilian Empire. With I once read,that most slaved sent out of Africa went to Brazil. So a huge amount of the economy is gone right there,decent reason to depose the monarchy.

It's true that the largest numbers of enslaved Africans were sent to Brazil, but the Atlantic slave trade was pretty much shut down by the British early in the nineteenth century and IIRC was not even continuing illegally by 1889.
 
I can bet the slave trade was a huge amount of power for the Brazilian Empire. With I once read,that most slaved sent out of Africa went to Brazil. So a huge amount of the economy is gone right there,decent reason to depose the monarchy.
The economy wasn't attached to slavery, except indirectly, through the slaves being used as workforce in agriculture.
What I suggest is that the some far sighted well-placed individuals in the Empire could have predicted the eventual end of the slavery as practical workforce (somewhen between the 1820's and the 1840's) and taken measures for its gradual
replacement. By the time the wars
happened OTL, the free workforce
could be and effective dissuading factor, due to its evident convertibility on troops.
 
For the Brazilian Empire to exist today the emperor would have to be a figure head.

It seems Federalism is very strong in Brazil. Found out that after having military dictatorships which were centralized that Federalism came back strong.
In brief, the 1964–1985 military regime tried but failed to transform the state-based organizational structure and power base of Brazil's traditional political elite; Brazil's "transitional" electoral cycle also reinforced the strength of state governors. Examples are provided of how subnational actors influenced the transition process in the national government and how state based actors and interests challenge Brazil's efforts to consolidate its democracy.
Brazilian Governors historically have wielded tremendous power
So it seems in Brazil some States Governors yield much power which in a monarchy could have clashed with the Emperors power.

The States were provinces when Brazil was a monarchy.

And look at all the important revolts they had against the Monarchy:

1. Confederation of the Equator 1824
2. Cisplatine War 1825-28
3. Cabanagem Revolt 1835-37
4. War of the Farrapos 1835-37
5. Sabinada Revolt 1837-38
6. Balaiada Rebellion 1838-41
7. Minas Gerais Rebellion in Brazil 1842
8. Sao Paulo Rebellion in Brazil 1842
Things calmed down under the Second Emperor. But his five year war against Paraguay created a huge debt for Brazil.
 
A good start would be less dependence on slave workforce, what would re-inforce the army, that would be able to draw on a bigger free population. A stronger army might discourage Lopez from attacking Brazil, and thus the Paraguay war might be avoided ( or, at worst, won faster and with less cost).

A shortage of manpower was not why the Brazilian army was small at the outset of the war with Paraguay. The reason was that the government...both the Emperor and the Parliament...wanted it that way. The Parliament feared a strong standing army would be used by the Emperor to repress the people. The Emperor feared a strong standing army might rebel against the monarchy. The Parliament refused to appropriate funds to allow a large standing army to be created, or for such things as modern weapons and new uniforms to be adopted on a regular basis, and the Emperor went along with it. The result was a small army which not only was not able to defend the country, but which grew increasingly resentful over time.
 
We can't detach the advent of the republic and the abolition of slavery. The dates speaks for itself. The Golden Law in 1888 and the proclamation of the republic in 1889. Actually, I'm not questionning the other issues, of course that there were much more questions concerning the army and the church, but none of them were as important as the abolition, to be more specific, the way that it happened. The lack of reimbursement to the slave owners made them suspicious about princess Isabel. Was only after the Golden Law that the republicanism spread thru the brazilian élite, before that the idea was supported only by veteran officials of the War of the Triple Alliance and some positivists intellectuals. I think that the major issue was that the law was promulgated by the Isabel without the endorsement of her father, he was really old by the time and she soon would be the the new empress, so that kind of recklessness scared the elite a little bit. Maybe if we manage to stop the princess the Empire would lest a little longer, but making it survive to the 20th century wouldn't make it last to today, it would hardly survive the crisis after the 1929 Crash or the Cold War...
 
We can't detach the advent of the republic and the abolition of slavery. The dates speaks for itself. The Golden Law in 1888 and the proclamation of the republic in 1889. Actually, I'm not questionning the other issues, of course that there were much more questions concerning the army and the church, but none of them were as important as the abolition, to be more specific, the way that it happened. The lack of reimbursement to the slave owners made them suspicious about princess Isabel. Was only after the Golden Law that the republicanism spread thru the brazilian élite, before that the idea was supported only by veteran officials of the War of the Triple Alliance and some positivists intellectuals. I think that the major issue was that the law was promulgated by the Isabel without the endorsement of her father, he was really old by the time and she soon would be the the new empress, so that kind of recklessness scared the elite a little bit. Maybe if we manage to stop the princess the Empire would lest a little longer, but making it survive to the 20th century wouldn't make it last to today, it would hardly survive the crisis after the 1929 Crash or the Cold War...

I don't think anyone has tried to "detach the advent of the Republic from the abolition of slavery." However, that being said, the abolition of slavery was only one of a whole variety of factors which lead to the fall of the monarchy.

1) The army had become resentful of what it perceived as poor treatment by the government. At the same time, the military academies began teaching the philosophy of Positivism...basically a sort of Pragmatisim or Utilitarianism...which made the younger officers question whether the monarchy was an outdated institution in modern times which was holding Brazil back as it attempted to compete in the modern world. As the older generation of officers which had commanded in the War of the Triple Alliance died off, these younger, Positivist officers moved up in rank and came to control the army.

2) The monarchy had gotten into a conflict over the preceding two decades with the Roman Catholic Church, which challenged the control the monarchy exercised over the Church in Brazil. Thus, when the army decided to rebel, the Church...which had always been one of the pillars supporting the monarchy...did not rally behind the Emperor.

3) The aboliton of slavery played a part, but slavery was already on its way out. Landowners were already in the process of transitioning to free immigrant labor, which was cheaper than slave labor. But the sudden abolition of slavery without compensation, through the Golden Law, threw much of the economy of the northern provinces especially, where slave-based agriculture was dominant in the local economy, into chaos and prevented the landowners from transitioning smoothly between slave labor and free labor. There were crop failures as a result and a famine broke out which affected the former slaves severely. This all alienated the rich landowners who were also normally supporters of the monarchy, and they, too, did not support the monarchy when the army moved against it.

And there were other, lesser factors as well, such as a financial crisis which afflicted Brazil as a result of the huge expenditures made on the War of the Triple Alliance, which had to be financed mainly through loans from British banks at high interest rates, and which had to be paid back.

The biggest factor was not slavery, but the army. As long as the government continued to ignore needs and desires of the army for basic things like better pay and living conditions, modern uniforms and better equipment, and continue to allow the spread of Positivism among the officer corps, it was a time bomb waiting to go off. Perhaps the coup would have happened a bit later than it did without the abolition of slavery. But I doubt it would have been much delayed.
 
the abolition of slavery was only one of a whole variety of factors which lead to the fall of the monarchy.
True. Those factors were interconnected, however, so we can still say that abolition, while not the main cause, could still be the root of a POD generating an ATL where those factors were effectively countered.

1
) The army had become resentful of what it perceived as poor treatment by the government. At the same time, the military academies began teaching the philosophy of Positivism...basically a sort of Pragmatisim or Utilitarianism...which made the younger officers question whether the monarchy was an outdated institution in modern times which was holding Brazil back as it attempted to compete in the modern world. As the older generation of officers which had commanded in the War of the Triple Alliance died off, these younger, Positivist officers moved up in rank and came to control the army.
That could be changed in a TL where the Crown was more careful of the administration of the academies,
so that ideological disloyalty was avoided. Even positivism can be spun so as to see the Monarchy as an eminently useful institution, a thread connecting the administration to tradition, preserving national identity. That view would follow from careful selection and proper discipline of academic instructors.

2) The monarchy had gotten into a conflict over the preceding two decades with the Roman Catholic Church, which challenged the control the monarchy exercised over the Church in Brazil. Thus, when the army decided to rebel, the Church...which had always been one of the pillars supporting the monarchy...did not rally behind the Emperor.
That came from the connections of the emperor with certain societies not overly friendly with the Church. A less trusting emperor wouldn't cultivate these connections, that seemingly did very little to help him (or even his father) secure his throne.

3) The aboliton of slavery played a part, but slavery was already on its way out...
True. That is why I postulate an early political movement reading the "writing on the wall" and acting to make the gradual internal extinction of the slavery happen before external factors brought it about in much less controlled way.
This political movement could adopt the position of cautionary warning against external threats, both economical (external forces moving against slave traffic) and military (neighboring countries getting militarily stronger). Postulating that this movement manages to impose their view, then Brazil will have an earlier gradual abolition and a stronger, better-equipped army by the time the wars would happen OTL. If Brazil is less tempting a target, then there may not be any brazilian involvement by the time the wars flare out, sparing Brazil of the economic crisis that weakened it OTL.
 
Last edited:
That could be changed in a TL where the Crown was more careful of the administration of the academies, so that ideological disloyalty was avoided. Even positivism can be spun so as to see the Monarchy as an eminently useful institution, a thread connecting the administration to tradition, preserving national identity. That view would follow from careful selection and proper discipline of academic instructors.

That should have been done. Although the military had legitimate complaints, they were basically preaching insubordination(there was at least one instance of a junior officer agitating for the arrest - and IIRC, execution - of the emperor, and nothing came of it) for some time before 11/15/1889, and the government didn't do anything. They should have been reigned in, but they weren't.

That came from the connections of the emperor with certain societies not overly friendly with the Church. A less trusting emperor wouldn't cultivate these connections, that seemingly did very little to help him (or even his father) secure his throne.

D.Pedro II was a Free Mason; when the RCC had a dispute with a masonic lodge in Rio de Janeiro(don't remember why), he supported the lodge. The Church wasn't amused by this.
 
Top