longer-lasting Empire of Brazil

1) Isabel was extremely popular, even venerated. Who weren't willing to accept her as empress were the politicians.
2) republicanism never became a popular creed. There was no growth in republicanism in Brazil.
3) slavery abolition caused resentment among coffee planters in Rio de Janeiro, once the most powerful elite in Brazil. By 1889 they had become decadent and had been replaced by the coffe planters from São Paulo, who didn't rely on slaves, but on European immigrants.
4) the Paraguayan War wasn't a bad thing. On the contrary: it rose Brasil's prestige abroad. Brazil built it's own ironclads, eventually becoming the 5th most powerful navy in the world.

Having said all that, the problems were:

1) Pedro II did nothing to defend the monarchy.
2) the government didn't react sooner to increasingly insubordinate army officer corps. Had they punished Deodoro da Fonseca, Benjamim Constant and others earlier, things would have been different.

I think the part about "Pedro II did nothing to defend the monarchy" is the primary point. He pretty much did nothing to fight back even though he remained the most revered figure in Brazil and someone who had the respect of other nations. He probably could have destroyed the coup if he had acted quickly. I've read where after his son died he lost hope and he had no confidence in Isabel (or any daughter) as a female ruler. He went into exile fairly meekly and didn't even complain when the Republican govt. seized his property and didn't keep its word to him. Pedro II knew what was coming and didn't seem to care. The easiest way to keep Brasil an empire was for him to have a different personality.
 
Brasil would sonner or later need a reform to make a transition to something resembling a UK-like monarchy. The "Poder Moderador" placed too much power in the hands of the emperor, with Pedro, being the great guy he was, it worked pretty well, but we can't give a guarantee about his descendants.

To endure longer, it would require more interest of Pedro to raise Isabel to be a true statesmen, or, better, a male heir, at least for Pedro II. If he did that, then he would have more of a reason to smash any republican attempt of coup d'etat in the bud.

It's pretty sad to know that despite his wishes for stability, the decade following his deposition was one of the most unstable in our history, with uprisings and small civil wars in a scale never seen since Pedro II regency.
 
Honestly, if Pedro II wanted to retain his throne he just needed to say "No" to the coup and the population and most of the political establishment would follow him. The emperor was really tired of ruling and didn't do much to maintain the monarchy.
 
I was under the impression that no one liked Isabella's husband either.

Republicans and politicians didn't like the Count of Eu. He himself thought he was unpopular, but he was amazed to find out that he was incredibly popular among the common people (i.e. The vast majority of Brazilians) when he travelled to all northeastern and northern provinces in 1889.
 

guinazacity

Banned
Republicans and politicians didn't like the Count of Eu. He himself thought he was unpopular, but he was amazed to find out that he was incredibly popular among the common people (i.e. The vast majority of Brazilians) when he travelled to all northeastern and northern provinces in 1889.

Count d'eu was known as the "french butcher" between the brazilian soldiers in the triple aliance war. he wasn't fit for ruling a country.
 
Republicans and politicians didn't like the Count of Eu. He himself thought he was unpopular, but he was amazed to find out that he was incredibly popular among the common people (i.e. The vast majority of Brazilians) when he travelled to all northeastern and northern provinces in 1889.

He wasn't popular among the people who mattered (Armed Forces, the highborn, the intellectuals). Neither was Isabel. We should not confuse the reverence people had towards monarchs and their family with popularity. The poorest among the population had reverence towards her, and she only really became popular among them after the Abolition. But they simply didn't mattered politically during the Empire (one could say that even during the Old Republic it would be true).

She and her husband were certainly unpopular among the people who mattered - the highborn, the landed elite, the urban intelectuals, the Armed Forces, even among part of the clergy. Most of those who considered themselves progressives were Republicans (most of the Abolitionists were, and those who defended the monarchy later, as José do Patrocínio, did it only after the Abolition). She was seen as a dull princess, too religious and dominated by her husband (and frankly, at least in the first two, it was close to the truth). Just as Pedro II, who after his first travel to Europe all he wanted was to be private citizen travelling around, Isabel probably all she wanted was to be a housewife taking care of her gardens.

I'm not saying that the Empire would fall if she had become Empress. But Isabel herself didn't believe that it would last (although she believed that one day there would be enough Republican MPs to vote for the end of it). If you want a "Third Reign", better have other heir than her, either a son of Pedro II (probably the best option) or have Isabel die and Pedro of Saxe and Braganza be the heir (at least he really wanted the job). And avoid the Paraguayan War, putting someone sane in Asuncion instead of Solano Lopez: after Tuiuti, if became nothing but senseless butchery.
 
I think the part about "Pedro II did nothing to defend the monarchy" is the primary point. He pretty much did nothing to fight back even though he remained the most revered figure in Brazil and someone who had the respect of other nations. He probably could have destroyed the coup if he had acted quickly. I've read where after his son died he lost hope and he had no confidence in Isabel (or any daughter) as a female ruler. He went into exile fairly meekly and didn't even complain when the Republican govt. seized his property and didn't keep its word to him. Pedro II knew what was coming and didn't seem to care. The easiest way to keep Brasil an empire was for him to have a different personality.

I'm just wondering, though: Without the Paraguayan War, would officers in the army (significantly smaller than in OTL, barring its own drive toward enlargement and/or modernization) have still tried to carry out coups against Pedro II in 1889 or perhaps a few years later? Because after all, there would still be the spirit of republicanism and of slavery abolition very much alive by the 1880s no matter what.
 
Top